September 23, 2011

Sara Goldrick-Rab imposes a racial critique on last week's affirmative-action protest at the Doubletree Hotel.

Remember last Tuesday: Roger Clegg of the Center for Equal Opportunity had a press conference to announce 2 studies that, he said, showed the University of Wisconsin—Madison has engaged in "severe racial discrimination." A protest took place. Peter Wood, at the Chronicle of Higher Education, writes:
The fracas was covered by the local newspapers and television; featured on The O’Reilly Factor as part of an interview with CEO chairman Linda Chavez; written about by several essayists; and subject to considerably blogging, notably by University of Wisconsin law professor Ann Althouse and Brooklyn College history professor KC Johnson. Instapundit Glenn Reynolds linked to the story, which is now widely known though, interestingly, it was not covered by The New York Times, or other major news outlets....
There's been a lot of writing the last few days about what really happened, and Wood puts together this account:
The press conference was held at 11:00. By then, word had already reached the organizers of the event that a group was planning a disruptive protest. They alerted the hotel, which closed its front doors as well as the doors of the conference room and posted staff to guard them. The protestors gathered outside the hotel where they remained for a period chanting slogans. One of their number, however, sneaked into the building through the kitchen and made his way to the hotel entrance, where he opened the front doors from inside. The protesters surged into the lobby.

At that point their chanting became audible in the conference room but wasn’t loud enough to disrupt the closed-door proceedings. At about 11:45, however, someone opened the doors to the conference and the sound of the chants drowned out attendees who were trying to ask questions.

Roger Clegg at that point had finished the formal part of the press conference and was talking with some students who had attended it. But just as the event was adjourning, the students outside pushed past the hotel staff, some of whom were thrown to the ground. The mob poured into the room, and Clegg, accompanied by University of Wisconsin Professor Lee Hansen and two members of the hotel staff, struggled through it to the exit, and, accompanied by protestors, to the hotel elevator. Several of the protestors prevented the elevator doors from closing until the two hotel staff members pushed them back.
Wood relied on various eyewitnesses, but I want to concentrate on this blog post by eyewitness Sara Goldrick-Rab, a UW—Madison professor. Goldrick-Rab seeks to enlighten us about how race affects "how we understand and interpret" the incident, in which — her words — "a large group of mostly brown folks came into contact with a much smaller group of mostly white folks and it freaked out some of those the white folks."

Go to the link to read her full description on the incident. Here's the part where she employs self-critique presumably to teach us all about how race (and gender) influence perception and interpretation:
I admit it: there was a fraction of a second in that lobby, when I saw the people run by and I heard the loud sound, that I experienced fear. At first, I thought it was surprise. Then I realized that I had caught myself anticipating violence and momentarily panicking as I saw men of color move fast and loud. I recognized it, I checked it, and I questioned it. I was angry with myself... And it took me no more than 30 seconds to chastise myself for it, get over it, and then experience the protest as it really was: peaceful, bold, and uplifting.

I had experienced another moment of fear not 30 minutes earlier, when I watched Clegg address a young African-American woman, responding to her question about his report with a smug, paternalistic smile that to me conveyed absolutely no understanding of the powerful hand he had in intimidating her. I reacted to him, in that moment, as a white man with no sense of his own privilege. It was the whiteness of his skin combined with the Southern in his voice and his hyper-masculine demeanor that made my hands shake. I was afraid of his evidently barely-repressed disdain for this woman. The Jewish ancestry in me felt it to my toes.
Somehow, Goldrick-Rab refrains from chastising herself for seeing Clegg through the lens of his Southern white maleness. She doesn't catch herself mid-emotion and rethink her way to a more charitable interpretation. Quite the opposite! Clegg's smile gets a negative interpretation. She has a physical reaction that runs down into her fingers and toes, she says. She attributes the loathing of Clegg to an ethnic memory born into her body, and she does not stop and question that prejudice either within 30 seconds of feeling it or a week later writing about it.

And yet Goldrick-Rab calls us to "come clean" and "admit that we are race conscious every day."
What distinguishes us from the racists is our honesty, candor, and willingness to learn. Race matters. And that's why the Doubletree event was no "disruption" but rather a necessary protest against an antagonistic deliberate transgression of outsiders on a community.
What? It wasn't a disruption because it was necessary? How does the perceived necessity of opposing someone's press conference make what happened not a disruption? Why not just say: I can't stand what the speaker was saying so I'm glad he was disrupted? Perhaps because you think that would sound badly antagonistic to free speech. But if you care about speech — and honesty and candor — don't redefine words. Speak clearly and straightforwardly.

As for the phrase "an antagonistic deliberate transgression of outsiders on a community." Wow. Just take that out of context and look at it with honesty and candor and willingness to learn. It's blatantly xenophobic and closed-minded. You don't want to hear an opposing viewpoint. Someone who criticizes the university's admissions policy is an outsider trangressing on the community?! So... what? The community is right to defend itself, physically, against the evil intruder? Step back and contemplate that, since you are inclined toward self-critique. That attitude is reminiscent of what historical analogues?

Are those toes tingling at all?

114 comments:

chickenlittle said...

Those hyphened-names only last one generation right?

_____________
wv = amorr

MadisonMan said...

Should I even bother to go look and see which part of L&S Goldrick-Rab teaches in?

madAsHell said...

Her Ph.D. in Sociology dissertation title "Swirling Students: Putting a New Spin on College Attrition".

Swirling Students? Does that include both floaters, and sinkers??

TosaGuy said...

I've been in Mississippi this last week. I was a nice break from the moronitude of people like this.

While Mississippi does indeed have its problems. Its whites and blacks do live together and interact with each other.

MadisonMan said...

Well, I was wrong. School of Education. Dept of Educational Policy Studies. Same as Mike Olneck.

What an amazing coincidence that two EPS Professors were there!

rcocean said...

I just looked at Goldrick Rob's picture and the whiteness of her skin combined with her ugly haircut & her hyper-masculine demeanor made my hands shake. I was afraid of her evidently barely-repressed disdain for white conservatives. The German-Norwegian ancestry in me felt it to my toes.

jnseward said...

God, Ann, that's brilliant.

John said...

The complete lack of self-awareness of these people is astounding.

MadisonMan said...

..and let me add, about her blog. There is something very off-putting to me that her byline is Dr. Sara Goldrick-Rab. Why the need to throw the Dr in there? It's very un-midwestern of her.

Conform, dear lady, conform.

Carol_Herman said...

You can't rub your skin color onto a scantron. It won't help you pass the test.

Clegg's 15 minutes of fame are up! he's getting in the way of students, themselves, being at an institution that deserves respect!

As to "getting in," I was always impressed by my professors at Pasadena City College. First off, they were the BEST!

Don't forget, admission is simple. #2 pencil. And, filling out an admission form.

The student number for enrolling in any particular class was SET. But every single seat was full. And, I even remember seeing "standing room only" for latecomers.

At the next class the first test came out. And, it was a doozy! Gone were all the students who saw questions that to them looked like they were written in Greek.

Failures produced the results the professors wanted. (Because you can "drop a class" without a penalty against ya. IF you did it within the class's first two sessions.)

LIKE FLIES THEY DROPPED!

Some of the best classes I ever had in my life ... were parts of my requirements. And, I loved every minute of school! (Later on some professors would let you drop a test grade, if you wanted.) Not me. Not necessary. My grades were just fine!

And, yes ... You need to weed through the first class ... to make sure those left sitting there can handle the work.

Maximum Twine said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Scott M said...

Excellent post, AA. Cue Crack to stop by and tell us how we don't get it and we're all infected with it.

As for the phrase "an antagonistic deliberate transgression of outsiders on a community."

I've heard this very sentiment used here in St Louis. St Louis once had the second number of abandoned/condemned buildings in it's metro, second only to Detroit. This was in the 90's. Since then, urban homesteading and other programs have allowed developers to go in and literally reinvent entire downtown neighborhoods. It's not yuppieville, but it's certainly not the decrepit government projects it used to be.

In any case, after the developers would move in and completely rebuild, restore, or otherwise revamp an area, they would put these units on the rental market. Yes, the rent was necessarily higher than it was previously and few of them were offering government subsidized housing..

Oh, the horror, the pain, the racism...by listening to the black leaders here, you would have thought it was a rash of reverse block-busting. The main complaint was that these neighborhoods were too expensive for their traditional communities, ie, where a neighborhood had been nearly 100% black, it was now mixed with whites (mostly Serbs), hispanics, and blacks.

"The traditional make up of these neighborhoods is being upset" they would say. The instant take-away, other than the obvious hypocrisy, was that these very squeaky wheels apparently didn't know the history of their own city. Those areas used to be wealthy neighborhoods. THOSE communities had been displaced decades ago.

An antagonistic deliberate transgression of outsiders on a community...indeed.

Carol_Herman said...

I'm reminded of another story.

When I was called for jury duty, I remember, in particular, an engineering professor from Cal State LA. (This was a murder trial, where the defendent only spoke Spanish. The hum of the translator's voice was always there.)

And, so this professor said he couldn't sit on this jury because he didn't understand Spanish. And, he knew from experience that translators often left off the "emotional stuff." So, he thought he couldn't judge witnesses fairly.)

The back and forth between the professor and the judge lasted a good 20 minutes. But finally the professor was told he could go.

Now, what I remember this professor saying is that even though some students are "handicapped" ... Either they can't read. Or they don't understand English. And, so "tutors" are provided, HE DIDN'T ALLOW THEM IN HIS CLASS!

The student had to sink or swim on his own! No special "tutors" allowed in class. He held firm.

You can't show me a decent college that doesn't effect the rule that the PROFESSOR CONTROLS THE CLIMATE. If he doesn't want a student? OUT.

If he has to give extremely tough exams? They do that, too. No excuses. It's ON the syllabus.

This whole thing at UofW, at Madison? Both sad. And, a tempest in a teapot.

Clegg sounds like the kind of guy that fights for a parking spot close to the building ... So he can run in and out in a hurry.

Richard Feynman said the worst places in the world are ruined because of crappy politics like this.

Quayle said...

a necessary protest against an antagonistic deliberate transgression of outsiders on a community

That's odd: isn't that what southern whites at the University of Alabama said when blacks from outside Alabama descended on Tuscaloosa?

This lady is seriously lost.

MadisonMan said...

Cue Crack

Has he been around this week?

edutcher said...

Very nicely done, Madame. The line you quote, "an antagonistic deliberate transgression of outsiders on a community", is how the Lefties have been justifying taking away other peoples' rights away for almost 50 years.

And the other one, "I admit it: there was a fraction of a second in that lobby, when I saw the people run by and I heard the loud sound, that I experienced fear. At first, I thought it was surprise. Then I realized that I had caught myself anticipating violence and momentarily panicking as I saw men of color move fast and loud. I recognized it, I checked it, and I questioned it. I was angry with myself... And it took me no more than 30 seconds to chastise myself for it, get over it, and then experience the protest as it really was: peaceful, bold, and uplifting.", is pure, "I'm so glad I'm not a bitter cling or a typical white person. This is what makes me superior".

Get the hook for this broad.

Lyle said...

This person has a PhD. Woo.

campy said...

Why the need to throw the Dr in there?

Education PhD's never omit the Dr.

Clyde said...

I think Sergeant Hulka said it best when he said, "Lighten up, Francis!"

Lighten up, Sara!

Shanna said...

"admit that we are race conscious every day."

What's this "we" lady?

And why should I be taking lessons from someone who can't push past the "southerness" of someone's voice? Where I live in the south "we" seem to manage to work together every day without having so much drama.

A mob is a mob. And people loudly, quickly pushing their way through closed doors while yelling should not invoke the same level of fear as one guy having a conversation with a girl. That's all Mr. White Guy did that invoked "fear". Also, being southern.

Calypso Facto said...

"a necessary protest against an antagonistic deliberate transgression of outsiders on a community"

That's odd: isn't that what southern whites at the University of Alabama said when blacks from outside Alabama descended on Tuscaloosa?


Or when the "outsiders" stood guard for integration? Could this be Goldrick-Rab's father protecting his community from outsiders? Certainly the race-centric focus is the same.

I admit it: there was a fraction of a second in that lobby, when I saw the people run by and I heard the loud sound, that I experienced fear.

Didn't Juan Williams get fired for saying essentially the same thing?

sorepaw said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lucius said...

Fierce critique (which is always AA at her best).

I read a chapbook of poetry by a Jewish lesbian recently, and I was struck by how the only times anyone was ever physically described (this was some rather poor poetry, alas) was whenever a man was presented as behaving in a disapproving, homophobic way.

These homophobic men were "white", as if that had something to do with it. I guess Jewish lesbians are People Of Color now?

wv: sionize Ah, who's there??? . . . .

sorepaw said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ann Althouse said...

The comment I deleted was from a commenter who's been fingered as a moby in the past.

The first post of the day today was about my suspicion that the guy who yelled boo at the debates was a false-flag dirty trickster.

John said...

Oh bullshit.

That's all that needs to be said about double barreled Sara. Bullshit.

John Henry

random thoughts said...

Love this post. Thank you for pointing out the fallacy of these silly petulant willing-victims. It makes me think of a few days ago, when the graduate student/ teacher's assistant helping with my daughter's 6th grade social studies class got into a fight with my 11 year old about the 1st Amendment. Apparently, the grad student thought that it was OK preach her message to "limit the free speech of KKK members" because she didn't like what they said. My kid pointed out that both KKK and anti-1st Amendment folks are the same. Both want to shut out people they don't agree with. These people talk, but they rarely think. I guess I defend their right to such stupidity, but I still get to point and laugh at them.

Chris said...

Great post. After that, I almost feel sorry for Dr. Sara.

wv: popheds (just a couple missing vowels...)

SMGalbraith said...

The community is right to defend itself, physically, against the evil intruder?

Reads like a line from the Southern Manifesto.

Or something Governor Wallace would have said.

And probably did.

No, I'm not comparing Ms. Goldrik-Rab to the segregationists.

Just her arguments.

John said...

These homophobic men were "white", as if that had something to do with it. I guess Jewish lesbians are People Of Color now?
===============

Been a while since I've seen it but "Persons of gender" used to be used by gays and lesbians to describe themselves.

Google just now returned 60,000 hits for the term, with quotes.

John Henry

Cedarford said...

I was angry with myself... And it took me no more than 30 seconds to chastise myself for it, get over it, and then experience the protest as it really was: peaceful, bold, and uplifting.

I had experienced another moment of fear not 30 minutes earlier, when I watched Clegg address a young African-American woman, responding to her question about his report with a smug, paternalistic smile that to me conveyed absolutely no understanding of the powerful hand he had in intimidating her. I reacted to him, in that moment, as a white man with no sense of his own privilege. It was the whiteness of his skin combined with the Southern in his voice and his hyper-masculine demeanor that made my hands shake. I was afraid of his evidently barely-repressed disdain for this woman. The Jewish ancestry in me felt it to my toes.

===============
Typical Progressive Jew. Weaving the typical progressive Jews "narrative" of the truth, attempting to define the lasting view of events. White people except enlightened Jews bad and evil, Brown people noble and good!!

America would have been better off if people like her had moved instead to that Jewish Oblast the Soviet Union tried to set up in their Far East.

RC3 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pookie Number 2 said...

I have Jewish ancestry myself, but I wasn't aware of the fact that it has to dictate how I respond to things. I guess in Dr. Golbrick-Rab's world things are different.

Lincolntf said...

She's a race obsessed bigot who thinks everyone else is, too. Stupid, useless scrunt.

MayBee said...

If you think about it, an Education Professor fighting for Affirmative Action is really an excellent way to cover up for all the teachers she's sent forth to do such a poor job teaching that their students need AA to attend her university.

The more racist she can tell herself everybody else is, the less responsibility she has to take for the quality of teachers she's training.

SMGalbraith said...

Typical Progressive Jew

Her Jewishness (if she is a Jew) has nothing to do with it. There isn't anything Jewish in her goofy views. It's all pure academic leftwing identity politics.

The religion of Jewish leftists is leftism, not Judaism. There isn't anything in Jewish thought - the Talmud, Maimonides - that is anywhere in her views.

I know, why try?

mydismalswamp said...

So many people, in their search for racism in the world around them, too often fail to look into a mirror.

A. Shmendrik said...

How about the culturally unbiased concept of the tort of false imprisonment?

Curious George said...

I won't bother echoing others, but Goldrick-Rab is not alone in this stupidity. And I will bet that she hasn't been challenged in years...maybe ever...about these positions. Any bets she will step here? She must be aware of this blog.

SMGalbraith said...

And I will bet that she hasn't been challenged in years...maybe ever...about these positions

I'll suggest that the least diverse - intellectually, ideologically, philosophically - institution in America today is academia.

Amartel said...

Projection of her own (excused) racism onto The Other as an excuse to silence The Other. This account by Goldrick-Rab is so deeply and self-evidently dishonest that it probably stems from something pathological. She doesn't see people, she sees colors. When she sees "brown" people stampeding she feels fear! Red Alert: Bad thoughts, Must atone, must atone. So she goes to another recent moment of fear, when she saw a "white" man boldly smile at a black woman. Her "Jewish ancestry" fears and loathes this sort of overreaching privileged behavior. How dare he! The loathing she thought she had for the brown stampeders is really for the white smiler.

Here's the truth: she feels superior to the brown stampeders but not to the white smiler. She's not intimidated by the brown stampeders; they work for her after all. The white smiler threatens her comfortable privilege. Stampede him!

The hive-mind protects itself. It justifies any slander at any cost against any conservative. Ask Joe McGinness if he's sexist - I bet he'll gladly, proudly, admit that he is (he's a manly man) but that it's all Palin's fault because she's . . . a conservative woman. She made him do it. Stampede her!

sorepaw said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Debbie Andrews said...

Way to expose her "stu-PC-dity."

Forthenri said...

After slogging through the over-wrought prose of Goldrick-Rab, and then reading through all the comments, I think everyone is over-analyzing her critique and her motivation. It's not that difficult: she's just an a$$hole.

Ipso Fatso said...

Sara Goldrick-Rab is a wonderful example of a "White Inferialist", a white liberal who hates the fact that she is white and all that the white race (both good & bad)stands for. In order to compensate Sara has to wrap herself in the mantle of "White Privilege" and other PC remedies. Sad to say I know a lot of these types of people. They are poison.

Sigivald said...

"What distinguishes us from the racists is our honesty, candor, and willingness to learn. Race matters. And that's why the Doubletree event was no "disruption" but rather a necessary protest against an antagonistic deliberate transgression of outsiders on a community."

That she expects that "explanation" to be exculpatory explains a lot about her, and by extension about her department at Madison.

(Which outsiders transgressed against which community, by the way?

The Doubletree Staff Community was aggressively transgressed against by outsiders, I suppose, but I doubt that's what she means.

And, frankly, I don't believe her crap about how he "intimidated" a girl with his smile, because she both isn't the girl in question, and didn't seem to even hear the question and answer she refers to - or, at least, she doesn't bother to report them.

I diagnose this as preaching-to-the-choir; she doesn't want to convince the Average Person that she was in the right here and White Man Was Wrong Because Privilege*, **.

I can only assume, thus, that she's posturing to her co-religionists in diversity.)

(* Yes, that's what her pseudo-argument around there boils down to. He was an old white man, so he is inherently intimidating, even when smiling and (I assume) being nice by every normal standard.

Fastener that excrement is what I say to that kind of condescending feces repackaged as subtle argument. "Privilege" arguments in almost all cases immediately get your argument classified as containing zero information.

** If I was being uncharitable, I could believe she wanted to convince such people but was utterly incompetent at it.

Contrariwise, I assume she's not trying that, but is trying some other, different thing, that might actually be accomplished by her words.

I admit that my self-proclaimed diagnosis is fallible, but I think it is the most charitable explanation that fits the evidence of her words.

So, I don't want to pretend I can read her mind, or be putting words in her mouth, just providing the best explanation of her babbling*** I can.


*** Not charitable, but accurate. Cant annoys me.)

Paul Zrimsek said...

"Outsiders" is what you call the Other in those situations where hating and fearing the Other is cool.

I will think of this piece the next time someone complains that public employees aren't getting paid in accordance with their advanced degrees.

Synova said...

"And that's why the Doubletree event was no "disruption" but rather a necessary protest against an antagonistic deliberate transgression of outsiders on a community."

This is what makes me feel that little frission of stress in anticipation of a confrontation.

By going to university am I one of those transgressors? And if I am a transgressor is it acceptable to try to make me uncomfortable and unwelcome or even force me out?

Is she defining the "community" as all of the people in the set that does not include me or anyone else not in lock-step with her values?

That's blatantly exclusionary.

I'm sure that I'm not the only one here who read the post and got to "...our honesty, candor, and willingness to learn." and were glad no soda or coffee was involved. Choke and out the nose, right there. All over the keyboard.

Michael said...

Barf

Synova said...

""Outsiders" is what you call the Other in those situations where hating and fearing the Other is cool."

Thought that deserved a repeat.

ricpic said...

The bitch was angry at herself for momentarily fearing rampaging blacks so she turned it on a southern white christian gent: the allowable target.

William said...

I'm thankful for the criticism offered by Althouse. It helps to diminish the harmful stereotypes of academics that people like Goldrick-Rab do so much to perpetuate. Althouse is a credit to people of tenure....It's an effective take down, but it must be admitted that Sara's own posturings are very close to self parody. She doesn't seem to have a faint inkling on how those words would appear to someone not in complete agreement with her.....Sara is quite bigoted, but she defines her prejudices as ideals and takes pride in them. She will probably skim read these comments until she comes to Cedarford's entry. This will confirm her suspicion that Althouse and all the other critiques of her are a veiled form of anti-semitism. Cedarford's entry proves it. Net result: she will feel unjustly persecuted but somehow ennobled by her brave struggles to shout down the bigots of this world (i.e. the people who disagree with her).

traditionalguy said...

That is sad to see a Professor dedicated to constructing an intellectual defense of mob actions directed against enemies of the people.

Is it a survival mechanism that makes her believe an Intellectual mob justifier will always be safe from mobs?

The Fed's intentional dollar devauluaton and the intentional energy strangulation by EPA's fraud regulations from the co2 is pollution hoax is designed to recreate the defeated Weimar Republic here.

Mobs are by definition unable to use a conscience because the mob's organizers tell it that it is unnecessary for power to be restrained when there are Enemy's who must be killed.

This is not Tea Party stuff. This is fascist will to power evil in disguise. And it has no friends.

Big Mike said...

So let me see whether I understand this. Professor Sara Goldrick-Rab is trying to say that she would not have "experienced fear" and "momentarily panicked" if only the mob had been white instead of "men of color."

Glad that's settled!

Still, I find it difficult to reconcile her notion that the event was "peaceful, bold, and uplifting" with the reports that hotel staff were thrown to the ground. Perhaps the reports were mistaken? Perhaps the hotel staff were gently picked up carefully and gently placed on the floor?

Sure. That has to be it.

viator said...

There people are completely and utterly mad. Thank goodness they only control the academy, one house of congress, the executive, several states including some of the largest, much of the media, most of the arts, public education, most of the larger cities, the unions and a nice hunk of the judiciary. Think of what they could do if they had real power.

Cedarford said...

SMGalbraith said...
"Typical Progressive Jew"

Her Jewishness (if she is a Jew) has nothing to do with it. There isn't anything Jewish in her goofy views.

The religion of Jewish leftists is leftism, not Judaism. There isn't anything in Jewish thought - the Talmud, Maimonides - that is anywhere in her views.

==========
I disagree. This has nothing to do with religion, but it has much to do with a not religious cohesive Jewish ethnicity long associated with communism and radicalism.

This "duality" aspect has proven useful to Jews in some cases, other times it has badly hurt. When problems happened with a large cohesive group of ethnic Jews of similar background involved in Jewish Bolshevikism or the A-Bomb spy rings comes up - the exculpatory defense is they are not "real Jews" but atheists, jews of weak religion. When someone says Askkenazi are not real jews, the response is of course they are because Jews come in all races and ethnicities and it is all about heritage.

However, this shifting defense, which does work to obfuscate, sometimes leads outsiders to see it as suspicious concealment of what is pretty obvious.
Because it is readily evident that an intellectual tradition of radicalism, tied to Jewish identity and culture, is obvious in progressive Jews, small in numbers, comprising a disproptionate component of Bolsheviks, spies for Russia, the feminist movement, ACLU, the academics that rally for Affirmative Action and against White Male Privilege.


Many progressive Jews, like Goldrick-Rab, bring up their ethnic Jewish culture and upbringing as part and parcel of explaining their present views..

And, IMO, America would be better off without all the progressive Jews..They have had a negative influence on American culture and institutions.
And they themselves would have been better off if they had kept their ways and radicalism in Europe and if the Soviets had build a viable Oblast for them.
Other Jews - fine..The Hasidim, when they are not smuggling diamonds and Ecstasy, are about as innocous as the Amish. And Jews outside that multigenerational segment of destructive radicals, are contributors to America.

chickenlittle said...

I'm just reading this woman's rant for the first time.

Althouse highlighted:

It was the whiteness of his skin combined with the Southern in his voice...

That is utter trash talk. By that partial standard she would have loathed Duane Allman or Johnny Winter. It must really be this part:

and his hyper-masculine demeanor that made my hands shake.

It's the maleness she really loathes!

Where does the UW get these cretins? Thank God she was never part of my educational experience at UW-Madison.

Chuck66 said...

"It was the whiteness of his skin combined with the Southern in his voice and his hyper-masculine demeanor that made my hands shake."

Imagine if she had said this instead: "It was the darkness of his skin combined with the negro dialect in his voice and his hyper-masculine demeanor that made my hands shake."

SunnyJ said...

Sarah, Sarah, Sarah...please do not assign your behavior to me, or anyone else for that matter.

The posts here are very encouraging. The posts I'm reading all over the internet are very encouraging. Prior to Obama's election this type of PC think police drama would have gone unquestioned...there was no one speaking out on AA or PC.

The progressive victory and Obama administration has pushed the envelope...and done a lovely half gainor over the shark. Intelligent conservative voices are coming forward. The beating that Sarah Palin and the Tea Party have taken in the MSM combined with their indefensible defense of a President they commanded into office wearing his cloak of AA and elitist intellect have brought forth the thoughtful conservative individual. This is a very necessary debate. Obama has brought the truth of racism to the surface...it is being practiced not by those usually tagged...but, those that are hiding behind it for various reasons. Not the least of these, is that it works, or did work.

Obama's incompetence has done more for the right to speak out and critisize regardless of color, than anything. Who knew?

Synova said...

We started talking about theories of truth today in my philosophy class and we got to the practical theory, I think it was called.

The idea is, if something solves a problem, it is true.

My instructor said he's not supposed to take sides on this stuff but he thought it was bull sh*t. (Or the equivalent. I'm not sure what term he used.) He's a lawyer, too. And apologies to Althouse, but people tend to view lawyers as tending dishonest, but I wonder if there isn't a harsher limit to self-delusion among lawyers than, oh, Education and Studies sorts.

Because isn't that exactly what this is?

"And that's why the Doubletree event was no "disruption" but rather a necessary protest against an antagonistic deliberate transgression of outsiders on a community.What? It wasn't a disruption because it was necessary?"

It is a very "practical" approach to the notion of "truth". If it is a necessary action to solve a problem, then it is truth. Supposedly people really believe this and philosophers argue over the nature of truth itself.

It's quite amazing to think that this might not be sloppy thinking. It might actually be that people are *trained* to think this way.

SMGalbraith said...

Jews of similar background involved in Jewish Bolshevikism or the A-Bomb spy rings comes up

But there is - or was - nothing in Judaism qua Judaism that contributed to that.

Jewish people have held high positions in science or finance because they've emphasized, as a group, learning and education. Because they were oppressed for so long, because they couldn't own land, because they had no home, because they were victims of pogroms and genocide, they had to use whatever meager resources they had.

So they emphasized studying and learning.

Because of that impetus or driving force - survival - they advanced academically and intellectually. And were chosen because of that.

But again, that was because of the situation imposed on them and nothing in Jewish teachings or thoughts that led them to leading the Russian Revolution or passing secrets to the KGB.

Once again: there is nothing Jewish in Goldrick-Rab's radical views. These are views held by the academic left not the Jewish academic left.

A thought of a Jew is not a Jewish thought.

chickenlittle said...

Here is Goldrick-Rab on Palin in an article entitled "Sarah doesn't speak for me:"

Come on! This woman can barely put one foot in front of the other, let alone read and carefully think through an issue of The Atlantic Monthly. She reads "all" the magazines, gazes out her window at Russia each morning, and most infuriatingly, claims to be a wonderful mom to her special needs infant! Lady, please. link.

I put this here because I am curious as to why such irrational thinking seems to succeed so well in certain circles--the same intellectual circles which defend affirmative action at all costs. It really baffles me.

chickenlittle said...

Why is Goldrick-Rab a bit of a loathesome stereotype?

Forthenri said...

The comment I deleted was from a commenter who's been fingered as a moby in the past.

I had to search for a definition of "moby" - Guess I'm lagging the crowd in internet-speak. I just try to skip messages from that type of poster. But I wonder just what they think they are accomplishing, and how indefensible their positions are if they have to resort to that sort of thing?

Rick67 said...

"a large group of mostly brown folks came into contact with a much smaller group of mostly white folks and it freaked out some of those the white folks"

Really? Whatever one thinks of Clegg's views the fact that he has the intestinal fortitude to enter Madison, and express his views in the face of such finger-snapping hotel-employee-pushing hostility makes it excruciatingly clear the people who were "freaked out" were white and brown folks of leftist persuasion.

I keep being surprised by how much the left engages in projection.

mariner said...

"The traditional make up of these neighborhoods is being upset"


"Tradition", like "stare decisis" doesn't begin until leftists have the result they want.

mariner said...

"I'm so glad I'm not a bitter cling or a typical white person. This is what makes me superior".

I also am glad she isn't a typical white person.

Does that make me superior?

Curious George said...

This Ph.d in Education wrote this:

"I challenge all of us to ask ourselves if I am utterly alone in feeling this way"

Seriously. Explains a lot.

Rick67 said...

While we're at it...

I had the misfortune of perusing the rest of Dr Goldrick-Rab's website. Yow.

What strikes me is the extent to which she can't regard people with whom she disagrees as merely wrong. They are contemptible. They should be hated and reviled. They deserve whatever they get.

That she keeps taking swipes at Ann Althouse as "right wing" tells me more about her than about our good professor.

In fairness there is one post on her blog that genuinely impressed me.

Rabel said...

Roger Clegg = hyper-masculine.
Who knew?

The most interesting part of her blog post to me was this: "I recognized it, I checked it, and I questioned it. I was angry with myself--for so much has clearly changed internally since I moved from a predominantly black community (West Philadelphia) to a nearly entirely white one."

What an interesting premise. Living in Madison transmogrifies progressives into racists. I would have expected just the opposite. Absence makes the heart grow fonder. Or not.

chickenlittle said...

Carol_Herman wrote: Clegg sounds like the kind of guy that fights for a parking spot close to the building ... So he can run in and out in a hurry.

But Carol, did you read the screed I linked?

The Goldrick-Rab woman sounds just like Michelle Goldberg when it comes to Palin. WTH is up with that?

Where does that hatred and venom even come from?

Is it learned?

Is it talked about openly?

Cedarford said...

William - " She will probably skim read these comments until she comes to Cedarford's entry. This will confirm her suspicion that Althouse and all the other critiques of her are a veiled form of anti-semitism. Cedarford's entry proves it. Net result: she will feel unjustly persecuted but somehow ennobled by her brave struggles to shout down the bigots of this world (i.e. the people who disagree with her)."

=============
Winston CHurchill noted that with Jews, that if you are easily identifiable by ethnicity, a small part of the population, yet prominent in disproportionate numbers in trying to control the society of the majorities of various countries, you cannot help but be noticed. Especially if you engage in class warfare against larger populations, and practice mass slaughter, as in the Red Terror.
Churchill predicted that that prominent involvement would "not end well for the Jewish Bolsheviks or other Jews by proximity and association.."

Same today..perhaps nothing is nicer than thinking you are a "persecuted minority" that regularly denounces, sues, and even attacks majorities - then when reciprocity comes screams it is "anti-semitic, Islamophobic, racist, sexist" to be also so challenged.

Muslims have picked up the Jewish "it is evil to ever criticize us, even if we attack you 1st" message quite well.

Goldrick-Rab who inludes she is a progressive Jew in her response just in case it wasn't clear where she was coming from, managed to denounce:

1. Whiteness
2. Being Male, hyper-masculine
3. Being from the American South
4. Elsewhere, she criticizes "ignorant Christians".

Sorry, she sticks her nose in it.. and goes to class warfare on targeted communities outside the progressive Jewish one.
The mindless knee-jerk reaction in some quarters in America is Jewsih radicals of course can meddle away and attack others in our society on class and identity lines - but cannot be responded to - because that is illegal class warfare.
(Just like Muslims that declare they loath everything about the vile infidel and his culture and try and change it while in our midst as a minority by lawsuits, threats, even terror...But who then scream bigotry and "Islamophobic anti-Arab Semitism".)
------------------
Like it or not, the claimed Jewish immunity to criticism from any meddling by Jews or a faction of Jews had a finite post-WWII shelf life. Most nations concluded that "immunity license" ended long ago. I say it is past due in America and "the times they are a-changing".

Cedarford said...

SMGAlbraith - "Once again: there is nothing Jewish in Goldrick-Rab's radical views. These are views held by the academic left not the Jewish academic left.

A thought of a Jew is not a Jewish thought."

If true, you negate the idea of culture because you can argue that whatever extent thoughts, philosphy, beliefs, art or whatever of any ethnic group or subculture - has people that embrace elements of it elsewhere, that are not ethnically linked to that "faux" culture or subculture.

Which is sort of like saying there is no such thing as radical Islam or radical Islamist thoughts -because moderate Muslims share certain of those (i.e. porn is bad, the religious book is literalist) thoughts, as do CHristian conservatives.

Fernandinande said...

Still, I find it difficult to reconcile her notion that the event was "peaceful, bold, and uplifting" with the reports that hotel staff were thrown to the ground.

Ms. Hyphenated-Lastname wasn't thrown to the ground, nor was her discussion interrupted, and apparently that's all that matters.

What happened to the hotel employees and Clegg is irrelevant, because as John said... "The complete lack of self-awareness of these people is astounding."

roesch-voltaire said...

I would defend her given this:
Postscript: It seems some did not understand that in my original post I was critical of BOTH of my responses. I have added a single comment to the end of the next-to-last paragraph to clarify.
And her blog on Securing Wisconsin's Future pointed out what I have found to be reasonable in many cases:Sure, admitting a black student with a test score that is lower than that of a “comparable” white student seems unfair, but only if you insist on pretending that life begins when students file admissions applications.
It is an interesting blog with good follow-up comments-- did not know it existed- only so much time in the world so thanks Althouse for this link.

chickenlittle said...

Sure, admitting a black student with a test score that is lower than that of a “comparable” white student seems unfair, but only if you insist on pretending that life begins when students file admissions applications.

Who lets you decide what seems unfair versus what is unfair?
You're mocking words and merit.
Plus you're screwing with kids lives in way which goes against common sense. You should be ashamed. And you, an educator.

And where is Carol Herman when I really need her opinion? @7:22.

rcocean said...

She will probably skim read these comments until she comes to Cedarford's entry. This will confirm her suspicion that Althouse and all the other critiques of her are a veiled form of anti-semitism. Cedarford's entry proves it.

I think his act is getting old. Whether he's a Moby, attention seeking troll, or an actual anti-semite, he's not helping this blog any.

Bemac said...

On her Goldrick-Rab's blog is a guest post by Elizabeth Wrigley-Field. Wrigley Field!

SMGalbraith said...

Which is sort of like saying there is no such thing as radical Islam or radical Islamist thoughts

If the thoughts are based on the ideas or views of Islamic figures or teachings or doctrine, then of course they are Islamic thoughts.

If a radical Islamist cites the Koran or Islamic teachings for his acts, then we can link the act to the culture or religion.

But just because an Islamic person thinks "X" doesn't mean it's from Islamic teachings.

You are assuming - as you often do - that because Goldric-Rab thinks "X" and she is Jewish that "X" comes from Jewish thoughts or culture or teachings.

You cannot contemplate that a Jewish person thinks "X" other than because they are Jewish.

What is in these excerpts from Goldrick-Rab comes from or are derived from Jewish doctrine? The Talmud or Maimonides or any Jewish thinker or philosopher?

I am not familiar with a single Jewish thinker who promoted the type of racial and gender identity politics that this professor embraces.

Synova said...

"Sure, admitting a black student with a test score that is lower than that of a “comparable” white student seems unfair, but only if you insist on pretending that life begins when students file admissions applications."

And this only makes sense by refusing to consider each person an individual. None of their lives begins with their admission application, but each of them entered a unique iteration of the world. Some people had good parents, some bad. Some were brought up to value education, some weren't. Some were naturally bright, some weren't.

What particular thing about being a white kid prior to the admissions process justifies punishing that individual? Pretty obviously, if the white kid gets bumped they aren't personally privileged in any way at all. What they are is screwed.

It is unfair and unjust in so many ways that the mind boggles that people continue to insist that the screwee should lie back and enjoy it. Of course they won't. What is going to happen is that resentment festers. People who would have been interested in solving inequality find themselves vilified for so much as caring that the injustice exists.

You know what? Cedarford views people as members of groups in conflict, but at least he's honest about it.

murgatroyd666 said...

I had experienced another moment of fear not 30 minutes earlier, when I watched Clegg address a young African-American woman, responding to her question about his report with a smug, paternalistic smile that to me conveyed absolutely no understanding of the powerful hand he had in intimidating her. I reacted to him, in that moment, as a white man with no sense of his own privilege. It was the whiteness of his skin combined with the Southern in his voice and his hyper-masculine demeanor that made my hands shake. I was afraid of his evidently barely-repressed disdain for this woman. The Jewish ancestry in me felt it to my toes.

I saw the smooth, mocha skin of this sweet, vulnerable girl blanch several shades lighter as she reacted to his racist, sexist viciousness. I was justifiably outraged. I wanted to stomp his pasty, heteronormative face with my Doc Martens. I wanted to hold this trembling dusky sparrow in my own powerful hands, caressing her warm curves and reasssuring her that the Community would deal harshly with the fascist enemies of The People. I wanted to drive her home in my Subaru and show her that white males were an unnecessary evil in this world. The revolutionary in me felt it, tingling with righteous justice, from the top of my short brown coif to my muscular thighs.

frank said...

Goldrick-Rab makes a rational argument for Hitler's desire to "cleanse the community" or the trampling on the rights of the Confederate State's rights to slavery.

frank said...

Dr. Sara Goldrick-Rab, heh. Reminds me of the time I had PhD in Education on the witness stand "insist" on being addressed as 'Doctor'. 5 lawyers involved in a juvenile matter. I then introduced 'Dr. witness' to the 5 'Doctor' lawyers. I then turned to the Judge who said, "I'll hold you in contempt if you address me as 'Doctor'.

SMGalbraith said...

Cedarford views people as members of groups in conflict, but at least he's honest about it.

He does the same thing he condemns in Goldric-Rab.

He (and she) believes that a member of group "A" thinks "X" because he or she is a member of group "A".

Sometimes that's true but not always.

These views by Goldrick-Rab can be easily seen coming from a Cornel West or a Michael Moore.

They are radical left identity politics having nothing to do with Judaism.

Dudley Do-right said...

"bullshit"

"a$$hole"

"barf"

All that needs to be said has been said on this subject.

Cedarford is on a roll tonite. His points are well taken.

Paul Zrimsek said...

It seems some did not understand that in my original post I was critical of BOTH of my responses.

The completely non-parallel descriptions of those two responses has a lot to do with that. SGR's momentary fear of the blacks is described as emotional, and momentary; her assessment of Clegg, as factual, and (as far as anyone can tell) ongoing. She felt fear of the blacks, but Clegg's smile was smug and paternalistic. You're left guessing just what it is about that otherwise unrecanted reaction to Clegg that she now claims not to be proud of.

And SGR apparently stands by that third reaction-- you know, that one at the end that turns her from the usual sort of smugly guilty liberal into the mirror image of Bull Connor.

Paco Wové said...

"I would defend her"

Well, there's a shock.

sorepaw said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shouting Thomas said...

And her blog on Securing Wisconsin's Future pointed out what I have found to be reasonable in many cases:Sure, admitting a black student with a test score that is lower than that of a “comparable” white student seems unfair, but only if you insist on pretending that life begins when students file admissions applications.

r_v, you have shit for brains. What else can you say about this kind of juvenile sloganeering?

JorgXMcKie said...

Since roesch-voltaire has obviously come from a privileged position, shouldn't his teaching position be taken from him and given to some deserving MA/MS or ABD who just happens to be an oppressed minority? [If a one-legged, diabetic, half-Eskimo, transgendered lesbian African-American can be found who fills that bill, so much the better. Win/win/win/win/win/win/win, right?]

n.n said...

Affirmative action is a policy enforced through a selective rule of law. Despite that it denigrates individual dignity, it may have been justified for one generation in light of the extraordinary, but not unique circumstances, of black Americans. It has long surpassed the point where it mutated into the problem it was designed to resolve.

On a related note, can I use the "ethnic memory born into [his] body" apology to justify loathing of communists, socialists, Muslims, Chinese, Mongolians, Arabs, and others who have murdered, raped, enslaved, and otherwise discriminated against my ancestors?

What is the statute of limitation on "ethnic memory born into [his] body"? Does it also place restrictions upon a selective history? Does it limit my grievance to individuals or is it expansive to anyone and everyone identified within a class and their descendents?

RC3 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Synova said...

Oh. Em. Gee.

I thought I'd try that "quiz" because I like online quiz things (Ace had a colorblindness test up the other day and I got a 19.)

I got three questions in to that "quiz" and it's just... seriously... WTF?

It's all self reporting "I have tender feelings about people." "I feel sorry for people having trouble." etc.

The RIGHT answers are glaringly obvious. If a person answered any wrong it would be because they're a hater and doing it on purpose.

Oh! I got a 92.9, and that's only because I missed answering one question. SUCKER! I am SOOOO more empathetic than Sara.

Neener-neener.

Synova said...

Oh, and can I say this?

I didn't *lie* either. I know that the questions were sort of implying what a person was supposed to do about it, but it's just feelings and it's the truth, I try to see things from the other person's point of view *habitually*. When my kid is having trouble with another girl at school and I tell her that the girl probably feels insecure and threatened because she's in the after school class for struggling students *too*, I mean every word of it.

I feel sorry for people, I try to understand their point of view, I try to view their actions in the best possible way because that's who I am. If there is a way to believe that someone's actions are *not* simply gratuitously mean, that's what I go with.

So I answered truthfully. It just never asked me what I thought it was proper to DO about it, or if I thought my feelings and emotions actually had an intrinsic value or made me a good person.

Gary Rosen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Skookum John said...

Education PhD's never omit the Dr.

Yup. I'm an MD, and I'm very casual about calling myself "Doctor Skookum". In fact I tell my wife and kids not to mention it when we're in unknown company. (Too many people take it as license either to rip me off, or to ask my opinion on their hemorrhoids.)

But if I find someone making a big hairy deal out of being addressed as "Doctor" in a social setting, they are always either an Ed.D. or a chiropractor.

For some reason PhD's in real subjects are pretty cool about it too. My cousin was an engineering PhD and never called himself "Doctor" once in his life.

Smilin' Jack said...

Somehow, Goldrick-Rab refrains from chastising herself for seeing Clegg through the lens of his Southern white maleness. She doesn't catch herself mid-emotion and rethink her way to a more charitable interpretation. Quite the opposite! Clegg's smile gets a negative interpretation. She has a physical reaction that runs down into her fingers and toes, she says. She attributes the loathing of Clegg to an ethnic memory born into her body, and she does not stop and question that prejudice either within 30 seconds of feeling it or a week later writing about it.

WTF? I'm tired of trying to read shit like this. There's only one way to make it go away: ship 'em all back to Africa. If that makes me a racist, it's worth it.

Largo said...

"I saw the smooth, mocha skin of this sweet, vulnerable girl blanch several shades lighter..."

Heavens to murgatroyd!

Beverage, meet keyboard!

Smilin' Jack said...

Education PhD's never omit the Dr.

Yup. I'm an MD, and I'm very casual about calling myself "Doctor Skookum".


Hee--yeah, I'm a physics PhD, and never let people call me Dr. I'm afraid I might get called on to do something icky, like delivering a baby.

hygate said...

"an antagonistic deliberate transgression of outsiders on a community." = outside agitators stirring up trouble

Norris said...

Within parts of that "community" is a huge anti-Southern (and white male) bigotry that I experienced while living in Madison for 11 years (returned to the South in 2008). Thanks for providing a glimpse to the outside world.

Tank said...

Ouch, that post is gonna leave a mark. Get the medics for Sara.

A great great post.

Damn, I'd love to be in your Con Law class.

roesch-voltaire said...

Synova-you seem interested in this issue and philosophy so I include the link to Michael Sandel's course on Justice, taught at Harvard, where he discusses the idea of merit:
http://www.justiceharvard.org/2011/02/episode-08/#watch

Jose_K said...

The logic behind affirmative action:

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/2011/09/born-to-be-viral-robo-crabs-compete-for-female.html

chickenlittle said...

This thread gives me support for a hypothesis I've been working for quite some time Althouse. Just wanted you to know that, and I might even hit your tip jar for this.

Thanks

SGT Ted said...

Wow that woman professor is quite the racist bigot.

sorepaw said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Oligonicella said...

Cedarford --

"If true, you negate the idea of culture ..."

Oh, bullshit. An individual's view is not synonymous with the view of the culture he/she resides within.

That's axiomatic, open your eyes and look.

Oligonicella said...

Paul Zrimsek --

"You're left guessing just what it is about that otherwise unrecanted reaction to Clegg that she now claims not to be proud of."

She thought his smile was nice.

Oligonicella said...

RC3 --

"Should we be excited about something we should not value?"

Dude(tte), "(not that I value those at all, nor should you.)" is academia for "Nudge, nudge. Wink, wink."

RC3 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Synova said...

I don't quite know how to explain everything I think is wrong with what is said in that lecture, roesch.

I can't tell if he's actually arguing for anything at all, or hoping to argue effectively for anything at all except perhaps that rich people don't earn their sh*t and so it's actually a moral imperative that someone take their sh*t away from them.

And Rawls, according to this guy, demolishes Milton Friedman's objection that life is not fair easily, powerfully, by redefining justice to exclude Friedman's opinion.

It's not as though he's been lecturing about the injustice, inequality and unfairness of birth and the genetic lottery and then turns around and says birth is neither just nor unjust, only what we do afterward, so Friedman's objection is easily and powerfully demolished... Oh, wait, that's what he did.

Oh, and then the next theory's demolition in favor of Rawls explains that effort is not important compared to genetic benefit. So Friedman is wrong because how you're born is not moral or immoral, just or unjust, and then meritocracy is wrong because what life gives you is based on natural talent you were born with and not effort or work.

These series of arguments are incoherent.

Oh, and he completely misses the notion that someone like Letterman is not highly valued. He is minimally valued... but his contribution is to millions and millions of people.

etc.,

RC3 said...

Again, I am deleting my own comment. I believe Sara Goldrick-Rab obnoxiously characterizes others as racist, but am deleting some of my criticisms of Sara’s own words - as not relevant to the subject at hand. Following are pertinent excerpts from the first few pages of her blog.

Sara opportunistically flaunts, and simultaneously denigrates, status rankings on behalf of affirmative action/diversity:

“Diversity is a marker of “success" now, and wooing talented non-white student is big business. If you like diversity for no other reason, you should be excited about it because it improves our U.S. News rankings. (not that I value those at all, nor should you.)”

She labels people as racist on insubstantial evidence:

“Some observers of their [student protestors’] actions were downright racist. Most notable among them was the Doubletree Hotel, site of the morning's press conference. By evening, Madison newspapers were reporting that a Doubletree press release called the students a ‘mob.’” (This mob/not-a-mob scared Sara and knocked down hotel staff. She calls for a boycott over the “slanderous” word.)

She is intolerant of traditional viewpoints:

“Pushing for assimilation of new immigrants? Seriously, what century are you from?”

And Sara is an educator willing to make arguments from authority, even when the authority is none other than herself:

“Believe me, as a professor of sociology and higher education policy and chair of the university committee on this topic, we've got our facts straight. All the CEO has is myths and fear-mongering. Knock it down.”

Note: In her comment above, Synova is referring to a quiz Sara uses to compare herself favorably to her students.

Sara said, “In case you are curious, I scored a 59/70, meaning more empathetic than 80% of the study's participants.”

Laika's Last Woof said...

So did it take the people who got roughed up around 30 seconds to realize they only imagined the violence because subconscious racism was clouding their perceptions?