University of Wisconsin law professor Ann Althouse writes a fascinating New York Times op/ed arguing that we should not let our emotions run away with us when we talk about race.Ron probably thought everybody remembered his big dispute with me back in January and would perceive a stunning revelation of my hypocrisy, but I see "his editor" -- my heartthrob, Nick Gillespie? -- made him add a link to his pissy old tirade so readers could see how deeply the old coot has it in for me.
That's very good advice.
As you can tell from that pissy tirade, the old coot loves to wallow in the belief that he is smarter and more profound than I am, but, unfortunately, he's not smart and profound enough to perceive that I am not contradicting myself. His aha falls splat.
My January dispute with Bailey was about the way hardcore libertarians are too in love with their abstract principles and sanitize the real context of race out of their analysis. Here is how I responded to Bailey's loutish attack on me back then.
Notice the similarity between what I was saying to Ron and what Professor Kaplan was trying to do in teaching his lesson about how law fails to deal with the way things are in real life. Both what I said and what -- I think -- Kaplan was trying to teach had to do with the way it's not good enough to deal in abstractions and how it's important to engage with how these abstractions play out in real life.
In the NYT column, I say:
Ironically, you have to care enough about engaging energetically with issues of race to run into this sort of trouble. It’s so much easier to skip the subject altogether, to embrace a theory of colorblindness or to scoop out gobs of politically correct pabulum. It’s only when you challenge the students and confront them with something that can be experienced as ugly... that you create the risk that someone may take offense.Ron Bailey, cocooned inside his abstractions, is the sort of person I am saying takes the easier path. I want for it to be possible to bring in the racial context that challenges the pat abstractions he fawns over himself for believing in.
I don't say it's wrong to bring emotion into a legal discussion. I am crediting Kaplan for not retreating from the things that make people emotional. I have never blamed the students for becoming passionate when he stirred up their emotions. That is a misreading of my column (which the preening Bailey does to accuse me of hypocrisy).
Look closely. I talk about Kaplan's "complicated pedagogical exercise" that "stirr[ed] up difficult emotions" in the students. That doesn't mean the students were wrong to respond on an emotional level. I think he wanted them to have deep feelings about law and society. The breakdown occurred because they didn't bring that passion to the discussion with the teacher but ran to complain to the law school dean -- using the scary phrase "a racially hostile learning environment" -- which led to attempts to cure them of their bad feelings.
My NYT column concludes:
Our question should not be about what we can do to make you comfortable or how we can make your life pleasant again.Clearly, I am objecting to those who were afraid of the students' strong emotions and who aimed at restoring comfort and pleasantness. I worried that this fear would chill classroom discussion and cause teachers to retreat into a more abstract, de-contextualized presentation.
We owe our law students respect, but part of that respect is the recognition that they are adults who are spending many thousands of dollars and hours of study trying to acquire the critical thinking and fortitude that will enable them to serve clients and to stand up to adversaries who are only too ready to shake their nerve....
The already cold Bailey thinks I have now decided I like the chill. I do not. I think there is something distorted and defective about reason drained of emotion. Or, more accurately, I think there is always emotion in reason, whether you admit it or not. That's why I was asking, back in January, what was that emotion that drove you to cling so hard to those abstractions you love so much. How do I know it isn't hatred?
Posts
19 comments:
This makes a lot of sense. I think the comments in the "Kaplan explains" post were getting off the rail, falling into a discussion of "emotion belongs in the law" vs. "no it doesn't." Now I understand you to be saying that people have to feel emotion and passion, but can't let those feelings - even when they hurt - stop the discussion of the real-world consequences of passionless policy.
What's beef?
Beef is when you roll no less than thirty deep.
Beef is when your moms ain't safe out in the streets.
Beef is when I see you
Guaranteed to be in ICU, think it through."
I think you were decidedly in the wrong in the Libertarians-are-all-racists-until-proven-otherwise incident, but that doesn't mean your comments on the Kaplain issue aren't spot on accurate.
I have never said libertarians are all racists until proven otherwise. I said there is emotion behind political and philosophical commitments and I want to hear it discussed if we are to have a very long conversation about your political and philosophical commitments. If you insist on staying at the abstract level and persist in adhering rigidly to ideas that in the real world were used to support racist policies, I am going insist on letting you know that from the outside you are behaving in the same way that a sophisticated racist would. If you still don't want to talk about that, I will find you an unworthy conversationalist.
Ann's Ode to Emotion In Reason, or How Do I Detest Him, Let Me Count the Ways (and Adjectives ...) (best read with a rising and emphatic tone):
"absurd"
"piddling droppings"
"stunning revelation"
"hypocrisy"
"pissy old tirade"
"old coot"
"pissy tirade"
"wallow"
"falls splat"
"hardcore"
"sanitize"
"loutish"
"engaging energetically"
"scoop out gobs"
"experienced as ugly"
"cocooned"
"fawns over himself"
"pat abstractions"
"misreading"
"the preening Bailey"
"have deep feelings"
"difficult emotions"
"the scary phrase"
"the already cold Bailey"
"How do I know it isn't hatred?"
All these fake disputes and contrived imbroglios...
...cruising for the next fued.
This is how you build readers in the Blogosphere.
This is how Althouse does it.
Don't fault enterprise, I guess.
Peace, Maxine
"That's why I was asking, back in January, what was that emotion that drove you to cling so hard to those abstractions you love so much. How do I know it isn't hatred?"
I don't care for the abstractions of the true-believing libertarians either, but I think the problem here is that you don't really believe that racism is the emotional source of this clinging, and neither do I or most anyone else. What we believe to be the source is a kind of intellectual curiosity and love of model-building that is insufficiently sensitive to the lives of actual people. Am I wrong about what you really believe to be the case?
It seems to me that you played the race card to force these folks to confront their insensitivity, but playing the race card is impolite and over-the-top if you don't really believe that racism is the issue. It is impolite because how does one prove that one is not a racist? I think you chose a poor strategy to attack a real problem and have unfortunatetly given these folks a legitimate way out of dealing with your concern.
As a person in a management position, I have had to deal with this phony "you hurt my feelings" crap starting about ten years ago when it seemed that every non-white male had his or hers or its, feelings hurt over every grain of sand. I figured out two things: I'd start every meeting by informing everyone that "this is not a feel good business." I'd then deliberately say provocative things and stare them down. But I learned that the charge of racism can be made over the interaction between two Vikings if one applies the now fashionable rule of "deconstruction." So it is obvious that we have people who are looking for a beef, an excuse, a platform for their own racist views. Ann, there ain't nothing you can do about it because people don't want to listen to you. It's the times, and if you are in a position from which you can be fired, you have to go along with the idiots. In my case I'm immune so I'm lucky.
Easy for us, The Commentarriet, to say.
I wonder how some of the geniuses so willing to fly speck each and every one of Professor Althouse's words would do under similiar pressure and second guessing. Given their skittishness to criticisms in the comments sections of these posts, not so well I would guess.
It is an empirical fact that many libertarians and/or objectivists (most libertarians are objectivists in sheep's clothing) are prone to rationalism, and have a fetish for their abstractions.
If you don't believe my point about rationalism, ask a libertarian friend how one might finance a "free society." Once the throat clearing stops, and as soon as you hear something about a mythic lottery, my point will have been proven.
First I read "Althousian" and now I read "Althouseishness". I bet the next one will be "Althousism".
CB, come on and be serious. Everyone knows Picard was better.
... I am going insist on letting you know that from the outside you are behaving in the same way that a sophisticated racist would.
Sophisticated racists breathe. Are you going to stop breathing to prove you're not a sophisticated racist, or are you going to keep breathing because you are one?
Given that Ann Althouse routinely peddles falsehoods from the Right against Democrats in her blog, she is no-one who should be giving lectures about accuracy, emotions or anything involving morals or principles.
seems like such a long winded post in response to a measly paragraph
the anger and frustration must run deep!
Amidst the he-said and she-said, accusations of over-emotionalism and crypto-racism, what I'm really interested in is: What did Cheney know?
I always thought the expression was "falls flat," short for "falls flat on his face" or something like that. "Falls splat" has a nice cartoony quality that is appropriate here, but I'd probably punctuate it differently: falls, splat!
Joan: I deliberately used the less common expression for effect. Also, it means something different.
I am going insist on letting you know that from the outside you are behaving in the same way that a sophisticated racist would.
And how does this relate to your insisting that they prove to you that they weren't racists?
Surely a sophisticated racist would deny that he is a racist. Is their denial of being racist simply yet more proof that they are very sophisticated racists indeed?
Dewave: Think harder. I'm a law professor. I've asked a kickass lawprof question.
Post a Comment