A HOSTILE EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT AT BOSTON UNIVERSITY: Boston University Professor Tweets That White Males Are A “Problem Population.” And Yes. There’s More.
Quick, report her to the Office of Equity and Diversity!
May 9, 2015
"I don't think anyone questions her right to free speech. But..."
That's not from some article about Pamela Geller or some law instruction from Eugene Volokh a propos of Pamela Geller. That's from something at Chicks on the Right titled "Boston University Professor Tweets That White Males Are A "Problem Population." And Yes. There's More." which I got to via Instapundit, who blogged:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
157 comments:
Always, always, ALWAYS there's a "but". Because my fellow Good People and I shouldn't have to follow the same rules we impose on you Bad People.
That particular "but" sounds just fine to me. The University said that she had a right to free speech, and that appears to be their entire defense of the idiocy she has spouted. The writer in the article is merely pointing out that that is not the question at hand.
Parroting The Narrative is really edgy.
For those of you too lazy to click through and read the blog post, Althouse's title for this sounds very much like the left's commentary on Geller. If you click through, you'll see why that "But" statement is a much more valid point than most (not all) of the "But"s regarding Geller.
I have served on grade appeals committees. One of the two criteria we were charged with evaluating was "Were the grading criteria followed fairly and uniformly?" You are simply asking for trouble when you have a public record of repeatedly exhibiting hostility towards a sizeable chunk of your students. The university is currently fielding complaints about her future teaching. Wait until they're dealing with complaints by her students. Of course, this is still hypothetical. She might be able to easily teach white males and not be unfair towards them.
But I think she'll probably have to issue a trigger warning to them in the syllabus.
P.S.: that was a really difficult Turing word test. I think I'm being discriminated against due to my viewpoint.
You are one of the prosecutors of this BS, prof, although you imagine otherwise.
Your fag/fag hag thing is incompatible with white hetero Christian culture. You've rebeled against the fathers and sided with evil.
There is no compromise here. There is only war.
I wouldn't have written "but" there, though. One doesn't say "you don't understand, but here is the problem". One says "but" in refutation of the previous clause, as in "I like tall women, but nine feet is too tall!"
I had a boss who used to say routinely "but-- and this is a big butt--".
She is seriously trying to help faculty at the institution identify the surplus people problem needing targeting for final solution.
"For those of you too lazy to click through and read the blog post, Althouse's title for this sounds very much like the left's commentary on Geller. If you click through, you'll see why that "But" statement is a much more valid point than most (not all) of the "But"s regarding Geller."
More valid because it's a right-wing instead of a left-wing commentary?
My post is a challenge. What are your coherent and neutral principles? Or do you just want to admit that this "principles" position is a pose?
I said, prof, that you are a fucking fake.
Your fag/fag hag Utopia can have no other outcome than this. You are delusional. You are a prosecutor of this stupidity and have been all your life.
That's why hetero men walk away from you. It's why you've got the hair shirt wearing backstabber in your house. The hetero men even walk away from your blog once they comprehend your fag/fag hag agenda.
Get a clue.
This would be good information to know before taking signing up for a course.
I don't see a need for the "but" or any apology from either side.
There is no distinction between hate speech and free speech.
Black college professor biased against white men. This is news?
Blacks are the most biased population. Against whites, against gays against Jews against Hispanics.
She is free to show her stupidity and bias. Honesty and clarity. Good.
Noted.
We're having a conversation about race, right? She's being honest about her stupid, biased feelings. So be it. Best to know. This is certainly valuable information for her students.
Boston University is a big place with lots of courses to choose from and lots of sections of each course. How many white males take "African American Studies" classes to begin with? How many of them would need to choose her section of a more general sociology course? I think it would be pretty easy for a white male at BU to avoid her classes.
"But if she freely expresses that white males are a "problem population" then she is clearly demonstrating her inability to effectively instruct them or grade their work fairly."
I'm not sure what statement(s) you are posing the above statement in opposition to.
Is anyone arguing (a la Geller) that her speech is bad in and of itself, and shouldn't have been expressed? Or rather are they arguing, as above, that it demonstrates a profoundly bigoted and biased viewpoint that will prevent her from doing her job properly?
AA: My post is a challenge. What are your coherent and neutral principles?
The Geller and teacherette situations aren't analogous. Geller wasn't insulting her customers.
Saida Grundy,
Tweeted on a Monday,
Quoted on Tuesday,
Viral on Wednesday,
O'Reilly on Thursday,
Times on Friday,
Eclipsed on Saturday,
Buried on Sunday.
That was the end,
Of Saida Grundy
She has a right to say whatever she wants to say, but the university is within their rights to refrain from hiring or retaining a racist. They are also within their rights to keep her on board and will open themselves to criticism.
I think we should get Lawrence H. Summers' opinion on this...
I respect Geller's right to free speech, but I wouldn't attend her cartoon event.
I respect this professor's right to free speech, but I wouldn't take her class.
Some "but"s are ok, no?
She needs a white guy in the class to argue the point.
Her pretty pink pussy controls her around white men, and she hates herself for it. But that's natural and okay, we white men can tame her and make her obey us and her pulsating pussy.
White heterosexual men love a challenge from skinny chicks, and this slut ain't fat.
Drudge headline: "WAFFLE HOUSE worker fired for masturbating on job..."
That situation, not Geller's, is analogous to the teacherette.
Crimso said...Wait until they're dealing with complaints by her students. Of course, this is still hypothetical. She might be able to easily teach white males and not be unfair towards them.
I agree with your post, but
Not that many white male sociology students
Not that many white male African studies students.
They aren't that dumb.
she'll be preaching to the converted. Progressive females of color.
That Shouting Thomas, is he insane? What's up with that guy?
The white hetero men are leaving your institution in droves, aren't they prof? 60% female population at most colleges.
You did this. It wasn't somebody else. The triumph of the fag/fag hag thing made this inevitable.
This is why work is devalued as soon as women dominate a profession. The men leave to get the hell away from your niceness, fairness, HR madness and your great pussification/faggotization campaign.
There is no great compromise and meeting of the minds coming between your fag hag universe and hetero Christian white men. We just walk away, taking our talents for risk-taking and entrepreneurship with us, leaving you to wallow your 10,000 HR rules and procedures.
Why aren't you happy?
I'd like to complain about the huge percentage of romantic comedies that are about bad behavior.
They're narratives about the Narrative.
If I were to speculate about what makes a good romantic comedy, I'd say ones that don't do this.
Perhaps I ought to exclude inexplicable hangups needing to be overcome as well from the good category.
Leaving a core of "antagonistic opposites are found to fit" ones as good.
Those buts are excellent, MayBee.
Coming from a clear thinking culture is the problem with white men. How can you sell them deluded bullshit as if it is required community thought?
On to the Final Solution for this mongrel race from Northern Europe. Boston College being a gun free zone, means they cannot oppose us until it's too late.
LindaH. said...
"What's up with that guy?"
He thinks he's a white.
"The Geller and teacherette situations aren't analogous. Geller wasn't insulting her customers."
So? You have to complete your argument.
It seems to me that a teacher is challenging student and pushing them to think more deeply about things. That could cut in favor of saying things that sensitive, passive learners might think of as mere insults. I've seen some wrongs done to teachers who took a provocative stance and caused students to feel hurt and demand that the university retaliate.
And special attention needs to be paid to teachers in departments that the university is using to look as if it is criticizing society, these gender/race/ethnic studies departments. The university hires these teachers precisely because they are provocative and challenging conventions. Their academic freedom is especially important.
LindaH. said...
That Shouting Thomas, is he insane? What's up with that guy?
He has a very normal, creative blog. Google it.
I leave it to ST and AA to try to figure out their relationship. Note that he has not been banned.
It seems as though supposedly oppressed groups that figure out saying "we want equality" works better than saying "we want our roles reversed so we can oppress you" succeed at a greater rate.
The fucking morons upset about the lying are gonna get us all killed. When someone is slitting your throat anxiety because they said "less Jews" not "fewer Jews" just isn't that big of deal compared to the death aspect.
And I don't accept the characterization of students as a teacher's "customers."
The word "but" in a sentence simply means "disregard everything written prior to this."
Picture this: a white man goes into this class and challenges the basis of this teacher's statements - says for example, that Democratic party corruption is responsible for the mess in Baltimore and one party rule is the cause of corruption. It's very likely that she will simply bring forward different arguments and engage him in debate. She knows that that is what the university is about and that the student is entitled to his opinions as she is to hers. There is a debate on causes and she is ready to take one side and allow a student to take another. So what's the problem?
Boston University has a red light rating from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Students in university housing, for instance, are told that "Bigotry, hatred, and intolerance have no place in the residential community." BU does get a green light for academic freedom though. I suppose the message to students is that if you absorb any of Ms. Grundy's viewpoints during class you better not repeat them back at the dorm.
"I leave it to ST and AA to try to figure out their relationship. Note that he has not been banned."
As long as you don't start thinking I'm actually a moby. I'm never mobying. But I do sometimes look at a commenter and think that's the kind of thing that could get some people thinking I'm mobying.
Ann Althouse said...
"The Geller and teacherette situations aren't analogous. Geller wasn't insulting her customers."
So? You have to complete your argument.
It seems to me that a teacher is challenging student and pushing them to think more deeply about things. That could cut in favor of saying things that sensitive, passive learners might think of as mere insults. I've seen some wrongs done to teachers who took a provocative stance and caused students to feel hurt and demand that the university retaliate.
And special attention needs to be paid to teachers in departments that the university is using to look as if it is criticizing society, these gender/race/ethnic studies departments. The university hires these teachers precisely because they are provocative and challenging conventions. Their academic freedom is especially important.
This isn't provocative on campus, it's the usual leftist bullshit. If they want to be provocative on campus, they should hire Steve Sailer and Charles Murray and Walter Williams and Jason Riley; that would be provocative on campus.
Note use of semicolon.
I worked as the IT guy during the advent of the PC era for half a dozen start up law firms. Great and challenging work. No women at all, because no women want that. My clients almost all became spectacularly successful, based on hard work, 20 hour days and humble service to clients. Hustlers and gamblers.
About the time the perfesser and her like started appearing, those firms had multiplied to 100 to 200 lawyers, and the women didn't want a tough job. No, like the professor they wanted a sinecure and babysitting.
My clue to leave for the dot-com excitement.
This is the real division, prof. Lazy ass women who want a sinecure and no risk, versus us white hetero men. Looks like I may have to head for outer space to get away from you and your kind this time.
If academic freedom is important it should be important to and for all, but it's not.
The appearance of academic freedom is important to further the grift and theft, and that appearance is indeed especially important to the racist frauds and hustlers with no integrity as few would pay and have taxpayers subsidize racism straight up. America is the least racist country in history with a population as mixed as ours. Most countries' peoples simply murdered anyone who didn't look like them hence a low volume of interspersing.
I’m afraid I don’t get Grundy’s connection to Geller. Grundy has openly expressed racist and sexist views and no one has said she could not. The question is whether Boston College provides a job for racist, sexist bigots. I suspect that it does, but only those whose views correspond to Grundy’s. Pam Geller is not applying for a job at BC, she is a blogger and has organized symposia which has attracted like minded people while at the same time attracting people whose objective is to murder her and people like her. The people who say “but” after condemning her would-be killers are questioning whether she has the right to say things that get Muslims to take up arms to kill her. Get back to me when white male college students try to murder Grundy and her students.
Oh, wow, students are not teachers' customers? Yes, yes they are. They pay the university which pays the teachers which teach the students. It's high time more parents and students realized that.
Furthermore, teachers who are clearly idiots should not be hired in the first place. You're not going to sell very many dog poop sandwiches at your restaurant.
She describes herself thusly on Twitter: "black+feminist+sociologist."
I tune out at that point.
Their academic freedom is especially important.
Hilarious.
I thought the way to deal with free speech was more free speech.
I was taught in 7th Grade not to begin a sentence with a conjunction. When did this rule change?
My post is a challenge. What are your coherent and neutral principles? Or do you just want to admit that this "principles" position is a pose?
Wasn't Geller's event actually attacked by gunmen?
That's why the "but" is so abhorrent there.
And I don't accept the characterization of students as a teacher's "customers."
@Althouse, I don't much care what you do and don't accept. It cost me north of a $200K to pay for my kids' education. You'd better damned well understand that your university is providing an expensive service via its faculty in exchange for dollars. Lots of dollars. You shouldn't think of yourself as much different from the guys who mow my lawn or fix a malfunctioning air conditioner.
Ann Althouse said...
And I don't accept the characterization of students as a teacher's "customers."
I get the feeling that you don't care for the commercial aspect of anything. It's an old hippie virtue. It's not terribly relevant for the real world though.
In law school I took a small seminar on Int'l Law taught by a socialist (his description). It was a small seminar and participation was mandatory. I was not shy in class or trying to hide my own biases. You can imagine how that went.
I admit I was concerned about my grade. He gave me an A. I did deserve it. Integrity. He had it.
Based upon her public statements, does Grundy appear to have that kind of integrity?
PS Part of why I got an A is that I enjoyed arguing with him, and I had to be prepared to do that.
I left a comment at the Instapundit link and I stand by it: the BU professor shows prima facie evidence of racism in her tweets.
It's also interesting that the top comment at that Instapundit link has been flagged for complaint. Read it and ask yourself what kind of person would flag that comment.
@Big Mike
That's where you're wrong.
Althouse sat down on her ass in a sinecure 45 years ago and has done nothing since... except bitch about fairness and niceness... She's brought the prim sanctimony of the church woman to her office, without the amerliorating effect of accepting Christian ethics.
This is why our fathers and grandfathers thought that Christian family men should occupy her position. They were right, too.
"versus us white hetero men."
who are neither white nor hetero.
"Looks like I may have to head for outer space to get away from you and your kind this time."
Hey, I've got just here
the cover song for you, Shouty!
My post is a challenge. What are your coherent and neutral principles?
For me, at least, it's not a pose. She has every right to her opinions, and to voice those opinions publicly. But as the purchaser of services on behalf of my sons, I have a right to assume that my sons would receive an inferior education from a university which hired such a person due to their gender and skin color.
And unlike Pam Geller's opponents, I am not planning on acquiring an AK47 to punish Saida Grundy and her fellow Boston University faculty.
Tank- that's it. She may be a really open minded person who loves a challenge to her world view, or respects someone who can present one. It would be awful to try to keep her from getting a job without knowing how she is.
But her kind of thinking seems to be getting more and more mainstream, especially in the social media world. I think it's poisonous.
It does crack me up when people who preach hate of others take jobs where their freedom to express their hatred is protected in the name of "Academic Freedom". They sit behind a wall and throw bombs.
Someday soon someone will attempt to kill Pamela Geller. That's the price she's willing to pay for her free speech......What price is Grundy willing to pay for hers? I have never heard of any black falling out of favor with the black community for being too hostile to whites. If the university makes any move to discipline her, she will become a cause célèbre.......Slavery wasn't a white thing exclusively. Ablition was. Can anyone name any society not dominated by white males where gay marriage is allowed?
The fag hag and her hair shirt wearing apologist doing penance for the sins of white men.
A fixture of just about every HR office in corporate America over the past couple of decades.
Con artists on the make.
Agree with Big Mike here. That professor damages the BU brand just as Columbia U's atrocious aiding and abetment of the mattress girl damaged their brand.
Some white folks simply don't recognize racism by blacks. Or when they see it, they applaud it as payback. That's juvenile.
"Deal with your white sh*t, white people. slavery is a *YALL* thing"
Slavery is my thing; submit now cunt. Wait you're still not servicing me; is slavery really my thing?
Why is slavery so associated with American blacks in America if it's a white thing?
Is this racist bitch forgetting about 6 billion people to sleaze her way through some argument about America sucking? And the whore is too stupid to get her cunt out?
Why engage this dumb ho who ought be in Nigeria or the Congo where she feels welcome and appreciated?
Oh that's right, it's fun to slap around my property.
Personally, I would probably avoid her class. If I couldn't I would take the class and challenge her opinions on a regular basis and take the grade I got. Part of life is learning how to get along with people you disagree with and also learning how to speak up for what you believe in. Getting an education is more important than getting a good grade.
Moneyrunner said...
The question is whether Boston College provides a job for racist, sexist bigots.
FWIW:
BU is an ex-Methodist Private College
BC is a Jesuit Catholic Private College
Both are in Boston, both are private
@Ann:What are your coherent and neutral principles? Or do you just want to admit that this "principles" position is a pose?
In the Geller situation, a private citizen is being blamed for an act of violence directed at her in response to her free speech.
In the Boston University situation, a person with power over others, delegated by the government, is making statements that appear to imply that she may be likely to use that power unfairly and in a way that contravenes University policies.
I don't see that the two situations are at all parallel.
It's the difference between a private citizen saying "I don't think women should be judges" and a sitting Governor, with the power to appoint judges, saying the same.
Oh, I see Boston University is private.
Carry on then.
The point is hypocrisy and double standards. Any white professor who said anything remotely comparable about black males, or Muslims, or whoever, would not be met with a thundering defense by the administration of his right to free speech, but would most likely be fired or otherwise disciplined. Or, like Geller, be blamed when someone tries to kill them. But keep pretending you don't understand, professor.
Tides out: racist cunt is naked.
I can't find the professor's tweets, only references to them.
Ann Althouse: "And I don't accept the characterization of students as a teacher's "customers."
You might not even accept the characterization of gravity as a force that keeps you in your seat.
Yet there you sit.
Althouse-the article says she has locked down her twitter feed.
Ann Althouse said...
And I don't accept the characterization of students as a teacher's "customers."
It is this attitude which makes both our education and medical systems suck. It's why profs and administrators wash their hands of any responsibility for the student debt crisis. Students are not little disciples.
Once you personally accept that somebody who is paying for your services is a customer, there is accountability created to deliver on that service. Often, in a cost effective, efficient manner.
It's why 'prestigious' professors don't teach the classes. It's beneath them.
Doctors don't consider patients as customers even though the patient pays out the ass for the service.
Perhaps the intellectuals in these arenas could reflect on this attitude expressed. It's kind of insulting to the students, paerents, and patients footing the bills.
The Prof tweeting about white guy populations isn't challenging anybody. She is just broadcasting her stupidity. She is fully free to do so.
Their academic freedom is especially important.
Test Boston U with the exact reverse......
@saigrundy's Tweets are protected.
I see it as holding the left accountable to the rules they espouse and enforce.
Alinskying the Alinskyites is great sport.
I don't see that the two situations are at all parallel.
The word "but" was used in both cases. Therefore they are exactly the same.
"Wasn't Geller's event actually attacked by gunmen?
That's why the "but" is so abhorrent there."
When the topic has been Geller's free speech, the free-speech-but rhetoric comes from people who are combining support for her free speech with concern that she's saying things and promoting expression that is hateful. These people aren't saying it's good that she got attacked. They are not saying that the hate they perceive her as expressing is aimed only at her attackers.
You need to make this distinctions in their full context and explain why they matter.
Geller's event was attacked. What does that have to do with the free-speech-but rhetoric that makes it different from this case where a professor is saying something that is perceived as hatred toward a group?
In both cases, someone is speaking in a way that some people perceive as hateful, and in both cases some people are trying to advise the speaker not to speak like that.
What sanctions are being promoted? Any? Or is this just, in both case, more speech that comes in the form of advising the lady to temper her remarks?
I haven't seen if the free-speech-but types saying Geller should be physically attacked if she doesn't change what she's saying. The free-speech-but types might be saying that Grundy shouldn't be working for the university if she doesn't change what she's saying.
"Accepting" that your students are your customers is not an idea... It either is or is not a market reality.
Althouse is deliberately shielded against this reality by the nature of her sinecure... which is precisely why she is where she is.
She's the enemy in this case, not a "dispassionate" observer.
She's very clever at disguising her motives and actions. Don't be fooled by this very clever practitioner of office politics.
Ann Althouse said...
And I don't accept the characterization of students as a teacher's "customers."
5/9/15, 8:04 AM
The University accepted in your name when it began charging tuition.
Meade, that's a good choice, and I will take the opportunity that Roger McGuinn once played my own banjo. Man, that guy could make music with a stick and a rock.
But I think a better selection, given the name and attitude, would be "Space Oddity".
Hammond, I was taught as you were, and I avoided starting sentences with conjunction for decades. But I envied those who did it despite the standard teaching. And I took it up, and I feel so free now.
"In the Geller situation, a private citizen is being blamed for an act of violence directed at her in response to her free speech."
Please provide links. Is that accurate and does it relate to the people who are saying I believe in free speech but...?
Are you using the word "blamed" in a very loose sense, similar to the way a victim of rape could complain about being "blamed" if someone said to her "Well, you shouldn't go to an isolated place with somebody and get completely drunk"?
Slave ownership wasn't something I was born with but now that it's been thrust upon me I shall, as a white man, take it and make it my bitch.
"@saigrundy's Tweets are protected."
Thanks. I didn't even know that was a thing.
She has to allow you to follow her. I clicked follow.
If I were her, would I let me follow me? Probably not.
I considered the kids I taught for free - when I was tutoring- my clients. Force of habit. No more or less than those I trained in classes at work.
AFAIK, there are lots like her. Many in the UCs. People of all sorts know to avoid them. The only reason this one is controversial is because of her tweets.
The real problem is that these non-academic, wholly political departments exist. I know that they are around merely to have someplace to put people like this, to make up numbers and satisfy political needs.
If I were she, I'd let you follow. She's obviously a publicity whore. The more, the merrier!
So, Althouse and her fag hag colleagues want the university system as their playground.
The solution for white hetero men is to abandon the institution and let it die.
Move on past this assemblage of Dead Souls and start new and exciting ventures, as we are wont to do.
Althouse can BS over the ruins all she likes. Let her have this pile of shit she created.
"In the Geller situation, a private citizen is being blamed for an act of violence directed at her in response to her free speech."
Please provide links. Is that accurate and does it relate to the people who are saying I believe in free speech but...?
[Geller] achieved her provocative goal in Garland — the event was attacked by two Muslims who were shot to death...
Is she in violation of university policy? If not, let her say what she wants.
If she is in violation of university policy, someone in a position of authority (sorry for the vague wording, I don't know how this works) should see to it that the policy is enforced.
That policy should be enforced equitably; or, if the university chooses not to enforce it, then steps must be taken to ensure that it is "not enforced equitably."
You all see what I'm getting at here. A racist white supremacist teacher should be able to say what he/she wants.
BUT ... and here it is ... the university will likely not hire a white supremacist teacher. More's to the point, it will likely not hire more than a few token conservative-leaning teachers, or teachers who do not subscribe to the regnant progressive ideology. That's how the university, and the left in general, games the system ... a system that they set up.
So, bottom: it's all bullshit.
Correction to above:
"Bottom line: it's all bullshit."
@Gabriel... even if "private", I think what you said is still valid.
Would this be considered "punching down" by Grundy - if she actually acts on her bias, that is...
I'm all for saying what you think/feel - on all sides. Transparency allows everyone to make choices/decisions considering all available inputs.
You're not getting it, boys.
Althouse and her fag hag sisters are bleeding their institutions and their sinecures dry.
They think there's is no end to the pot of gold. Nobody has to produce anything worthwhile. It's all just about divvying up the spoils "fairly."
Leave it to them to milk the system dry and destroy it. It ain't worth shit. It's only a matter of time until the fat sows eat it all.
BU is called B Jew because of the large jewish population.
Lots of NYC peeps with money.
tits.
I haven't seen if the free-speech-but types saying Geller should be physically attacked if she doesn't change what she's saying. T
Nobody I've seen is saying Geller *should* be physically attacked. But they are saying
a)It's hate speech not really free speech
and
b) She had it coming. If she didn't want to be attacked, she shouldn't have had the event
""In the Geller situation, a private citizen is being blamed for an act of violence directed at her in response to her free speech."
Please provide links. Is that accurate and does it relate to the people who are saying I believe in free speech but...?
Are you using the word "blamed" in a very loose sense, similar to the way a victim of rape could complain about being "blamed" if someone said to her "Well, you shouldn't go to an isolated place with somebody and get completely drunk"?"
The Washington Post: “Event organizer offers no apology after thwarted attack in Texas.”
AP: “Activist: No regrets about cartoon contest ended by gunfire.”
Really, would any of the main stream media write something like, "Well, you shouldn't go to an isolated place with somebody and get completely drunk"?" except to criticize whomever said it as a victim blamer? The question answers itself.
Has the racist professor been physically attacked or threatened with physical attack?
I've told y'all but ya done did forget (I bet): fighting fire with fire is what the pros do. Burn the goddamned fire's fuel at your whim and convenience thereby preventing a conflagration.
I believe that what Professor Althouse is trying to do is compare the racist and sexist beliefs that Professor Grundy has expressed with Pamela Geller’s beliefs about Islam. That’s an interesting dichotomy on which academia thrives. Both women are provocative, one – Ms. Geller - to the point of being physically attacked with deadly force. I am not sure of the basis for Professor Grundy’s belief that
“White masculinity isn’t a problem for america’s colleges, white masculinity is THE problem for america’s colleges.” and “Deal with your white sh*t, white people. slavery is a *YALL* thing.”
The first is a matter of opinion, and I would be interested to see if there is documented evidence of that. The latter is simply ignorant and stupid. Slavery is a universal “thing” and is still practiced, but only by non-whites.
Ms. Geller’s is quoted as saying that she has
"no problem with Islam. I have a problem with political Islam." In particular, she says jihadism is a threat to civilization.”
She has also said that Islam is
"a political movement ... authoritarian and supremacist ... as well as a religion," "Islam is the most antisemitic, genocidal ideology in the world.”
As if to deliberately wish to prove her point, Islamic youth attacked an event she organized to draw cartoons of Mohammad and, but for good shooting by police, would have massacred the attendees.
We will draw a discreet curtain and avoid mentioning both the political nature of governments as well as the events in the Middle East. That would be piling on.
So I would argue that Ms. Geller has a point and Professor Grundy does not. But then I am not a Professor of anything and I stand ready to be corrected. However I await breathlessly the decision by BC to hire David Duke as a counterweight to Professor Grundy.
"The free-speech-but types might be saying that Grundy shouldn't be working for the university if she doesn't change what she's saying."
But won't she still 'feel' that way? Should we expect her to evolve in this if she is presented with rigorous, thoughtful debate?
Must we ascertain if she is simply being provocative as one might expect and want from a good teacher?
Just for fun, here is a modified paragraph from the NYT on an imagined attack in New York City:
But it is equally clear that the Book of Mormon on Broadway, was not really about free speech. It was an exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom.
" And Geller’s contribution to these protections and our unwavering dedication to its preservation is, exactly, what? A taunt. Shouldn’t one at least aspire to some originality? It’s been done. And each time, the result is the same. You haul out a picture of Muhammad; “they” haul out a fatwa. Cat puts out cheese; mouse gets eaten. What does one expect?"
--Kathleen Parker, today
My apologies for confusion BC for BU. I'm sure both are in the vicinity of Boston. I wonder if they drew straws for who would hire Professor Grundy and who won?
Nice to see a link to the blog. It is my daughter's favorite, She is the youngest who got the crazy let wing student guides at U of Arizona. Almost like immunizing her against left wing POV.
"She's being honest about her stupid, biased feelings. So be it. Best to know. This is certainly valuable information for her students."
Yes, as long as white male students are not obliged to take her course to graduate, as some colleges are now doing with these anti-white courses.
Kathleen Parker is the pluperfect Liberal and ready for a full professorship.
"Their academic freedom is especially important."
Like when they assault kids demonstrating on campus for a cause they don't agree with ?
Mediaite reports on the Bill Maher show:
MSNBC’s Alex Wagner asked, “Isn’t the whole point of free speech not to judge people?” Cain shot back that when people threaten to kill just for expressing opinions, “it becomes virtuous to offend that person… [and] you need to shock them out of their horrible position.”
Former Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chafee said, “You’re talking about hatred!” Maher found that a little mind-boggling in a conversation about people who kill for free speech. He said everyone should be on the side of Muslims who just want to live their lives and don’t draw attention to people mocking their faith.
Alex Wagner...who thinks the point of free speech is not to judge people...is married to Sam Kass, Obama Entourage member.
Bill Maher makes the excellent point that shooting people is more hatey than speech.
What's academic freedom for if not to smite cis-genered whites, and if he's Christian you get triple points. From her picture it appears as of Professor Grundy has a long and profitable career ahead of her.
Professor Grundy, Professor Grundy, Professor Grundy, Professor Grundy, Professor Grundy, Professor Grundy, Professor Grundy, Professor Grundy,
That has a certain ring to it, no?
"Doctors don't consider patients as customers even though the patient pays out the ass for the service."
Interesting that you link these two ideas. Thursday I was sitting at my desk reading blogs when a patient from 30 years ago called me. I had taken a melanoma from her arm and, because she was 33, I warned her that I did not think females with melanoma should get pregnant and explained why.
She found my number on Google and was astonished when I answered the phone myself. I have been retired for years. She had recently had a breast biopsy for a precancerous lesion (DCIS) and wanted to know what I thought she should do. We talked for about ten minutes.
What would you call that relationship ?
When the topic has been Geller's free speech, the free-speech-but rhetoric comes from people who are combining support for her free speech with concern that she's saying things and promoting expression that is hateful. These people aren't saying it's good that she got attacked.
I feel like you are missing why the people upset about the "Free Speech But" rhetoric w/r/t Geller.
They are upset *because* she got shot when expressing her free speech.
If people were discussing her in a vacuum- just a general "so what do you think about what Pam Geller says?"- it would be an entirely different conversation. But there is no vacuum. Her event was attacked by ISIS wannabes.
The professor should get the benefit of the doubt unless there's evidence that she's mistreating white male students. It's got to be pretty common for professors to take a dislike to certain of their students for one reason or another.
Razib Khan looks at some data:
"The consistent free speech position gets stronger as you get more liberal, and, as you get more intelligent. But it is interesting that the position where you won’t allow a racist to speak but you will allow a Muslim cleric to speak gets more frequent among liberals and the very intelligent. This, I believe, explains some of the rumblings and equivocation about free speech absolutism. These are a minority, but they are vocal."
"It's got to be pretty common for professors to take a dislike to certain of their students for one reason or another."
Like, you know, their race. But only for one side is that seen as just a harmless, nothing-to-see-here expression of free speech.
"And I don't accept the characterization of students as a teacher's "customers."
The professor needs to get out more.
I don't see the parallel between these two situations at all. They are not analogous. The worst case scenarios for each of these two professors are simply not parallel.
The worst case argument for Grundy is "You have no right to your job as a professor here at BU, but you are free to seek excellence elsewhere.'
The worst case argument for Geller is 'You have no right to live.'
Isn't Elie Weisel at Boston University?
I wonder how he feels about a wide swathe of people being characterized as "a problem population."
Come to think of it, I wonder how many people his ancestors held as slaves. Come to think further of it, it seems his people have a history of being enslaved themselves.
In a private university the students and the parents *are* the customers. The private university is a business, not a public institution.
That's why the first amendment doesn't apply and why students/parents who are paying outrageous amounts of $$$ have a right to demand they be taught and propagandized - whoops sorry - "challenged" and made uncomfortable by some bigot or left-wing loony.
Just one example for your collection, professor.
He failed this student.
"Russum’s classroom behavior is a reflection of his personal biases. Mr. Russum’s Facebook likes and profile pictures include Fidel Castro and Jesus Christ making an obscene gesture. The website “Rate my Professor” shows that G.L. is not the first student to be subjected to the professor’s viewpoint discrimination. His college email signature line includes a quote from a Marxist who praises Lenin, Stalin, the Khmer Rouge, and Adolf Hitler. These, along with the inappropriate course content, show that Professor Russum is seeking to impose his own values on students, in violation of the Constitution."
Another lefty professor.
And idea that some race/gender/ethnic professor is "challenging" with new ideas is absurd. This isn't 1965 or 1975, even though some still think it is.
In general, the liberal arts in this country are a joke and anyone who spends money on a College education in them might as well go to clown college or Marx U.
Its not just that you get left-wing indoctrination, you get STUPID left-wing indoctrination.
"The point is hypocrisy and double standards"
Double standards are the metastandard.
Any similar language about any other group would trigger harassment and equal protection concerns.
The university would want to make sure she is not creating a hostile environment for students and colleagues.
BC is not BU, but Mary Daly was eventually fired for excluding men from her classroom altogether.
Shouting Thomas,
The word "fag," just so you know, is a reference to a bundle of sticks. Which is why a fag is a cigarette in the UK. The label is applied to homosexuals to remind them of the period when gay people were burned at the stake.
I used to say "fag" when I was a young boy, and ignorant. I know better now.
I am grateful to Ms. Grundy for her candor. Yes, her remark is offensive to some. Yes, it is stupid and self-indulgent. But it is her speech and she is free to make it.
She should also be free to pay the price. People who are stupid and self-indulgent enough to utter such stupid and self-indulgent remarks --that directly and materially undermine her ability to perform her job and the ability of her employer to extract vast sums from the credulous public-- are not ready to be college professors.
The takeaway from all this if, if what Geller did was wrong, then we have a whole African studides, feminism studies group of people we can go after for promoting inflammatory speech at groups, namely white males.
And we can similarly go after Ricky Gervais, who mocked the tale of Noahs work for 20 minuts of his 60 minute comic routine. or how about any atheist hwo says god is dead?
Althouse wrote: "For those of you too lazy to click through and read the blog post, Althouse's title for this sounds very much like the left's commentary on Geller. If you click through, you'll see why that "But" statement is a much more valid point than most (not all) of the "But"s regarding Geller."
My point is if we can have piss Christ then we can have mohammad cartoons. If we can have discussion of patriarchies, then we can call feminists feminazis. et etc. down the line.
This one sided view of hate speech only protects hate speech against those pushing it. Almost always from the left.
'My post is a challenge. What are your coherent and neutral principles? Or do you just want to admit that this "principles" position is a pose?'
It's really quite simple. I saw your title as bait. I even considered commenting again to note that it wasn't just the left that "but"s. But (forgive me for that) you want my "coherent and neutral principles."
She absolutely has the right to say/tweet such things. BUT, unlike Geller, she is a faculty member. Geller can be as vile and bigoted as she wants to be (I don't feel strongly about Geller one way or another) and it might not affect her job (whatever that is) at all.
You know damned good and well that faculty cannot afford even the appearance of bias towards their students. And you know damned good and well that was my point. Less about principles and more about practicalities. From a practical standpoint, she has placed herself in a position where she can't necessarily say anything she wants. At least not without significant consequences.
And none of this gets into the wisdom (or lack thereof) of shooting off your mouth before you are tenured. It is one of the great ironies of the university tenure system that in many instances a nontenured faculty member has to carefully refrain from practicing free speech until they are tenured.
People have noted that Boston University is a private school, so they aren't under the government's auspices, re: speech. Bullshit.
There is no way that BU doesn't receive some sort of money from the government. I don't care if it's only the occasional grant or that its students receive some type of government loan. So...
Use that shit against them just as the left does when they defend Michelle's insane lunch program. BU is receiving federal funds - I'm sure of it - and this racist, sexist pig is creating a hostile learning environment.
There's got to be some Title XYZ to crucify this bitch.
"Their academic freedom is especially important."
That might be a coherent principle, but it isn't neutral. Some faculty have more important academic freedom than others? If they can't make their point without bigotry, then maybe they aren't intelligent enough to be teaching.
If an entire subject matter can't be taught without resorting to bigotry (and maybe she can), then should it be offered by the university in the first place?
Teaching is an outlier from the traditional free market. When I buy a widget, I demand satisfaction; when I hire a lawn boy, I demand satisfaction. In teaching, I buy knowledge but the teacher demands satisfaction (good grades in order to continue).
Thinking back to college, I was ways amazed at the arrogance of professors - whose livelihood I was helping to underwrite - treating me with contempt. What a perversion...
Nonetheless, the students are most certainly your customers, Professor. I hope that you treat them with the dignity they rightly deserve. And I suspect that you do.
"If I were her, would I let me follow me? Probably not."
Maybe not. I don't think you would be unfair to her. But if she tweeted something particularly bigoted, you might feel compelled to post on it. Which would reinforce my original point that, practically speaking, she shouldn't be engaging in certain forms of speech (legal though it may be).
"I was ways amazed at the arrogance of professors - whose livelihood I was helping to underwrite - treating me with contempt. What a perversion..."
I did not see that but it was the 1950s so maybe it is a recent thing. I can't recall a single example.
Here's an article demonstrating her abysmal ignorance of the subject she claims to teach.
Ann Althouse said...
"The Geller and teacherette situations aren't analogous. Geller wasn't insulting her customers."
So? You have to complete your argument.
Don't pretend it's not obvious.
The university hires these teachers precisely because they are provocative and challenging conventions.
They hired her because she's black. Read the article above and you'll see there are no other reasons.
That occurred in the eighties, Michael K. I'm not sure where the pendulum is today, but, given some of the horrific attitudes I've read about in recent years, I could make a guess.
No doubt Ritmo will rise to her defense! After all black female profs have 100% right to engage in blatant racism against white males. That's just part of breaking down the patriarchy.
Fuck white men, they've had it all their way for 1000 years. It's time they knew what it felt like to be slaves.
From what I observe about the behavior of many college administrations and faculty, I'd say there are a lotta " poop sandwiches sold at those restaurants."
So let me get this straight. In the name of knee-jerk defense of all profs, Ann Althouse is defending this racist jerk's right to inflict her racism on white male students in the name of....
what exactly? I thought "hostile environments" were to be banned in universities these days. Apparently only if you're not a white male.
Otherwise if you ARE a white male, fuck you!
Amazing that I find myself on the same side of an issue with Shouting Thomas, who is a racist misogynist jerk and all around asshole.
Thanks Ann, you really do great to create coalitions opposing your insane beliefs.
The most evil insane part of this is the white males who are engineering students. They tend to be a bit sensitive to begin with(geeks) and then you will subject them to this Nazi-like hatred on their person for the sake of "diversity"?
Fuck you and the white horse you rode in on.
"Alex wrote:
what exactly? I thought "hostile environments" were to be banned in universities these days. Apparently only if you're not a white male.
Otherwise if you ARE a white male, fuck you!
Of course. hostile environments do not apply to white people (from African studies), conservatives, white males (from feminist studies)
and Christians (from gay rights activates, atheists and anyone who is a liberal but not a Christian).
Unless those white people are women and/or gay.
Hate crimes are about protected groups who are offended. But those same offended groups can turn around and be offenseive to other groups so long as those groups are not liberal ones.
I really wish I was rich. Think of the ads. Boston College is hostile to white males. Come to our college. Why pay $60k a year to be hated? Its a hostile environment.
Althouse clings to a high status vision of teachers / profs because she wants high status. She doesn't like the idea of being a cook whose job it is to set before the students a banquet of knowledge. She's wrong because if there were no students she would be out of a job. Teachers used to be slaves. A much more useful way to treat them.
Tuition and fees at BU are $62, 956. For a mediocre education. And, the professor is insulting those most likely to be paying full freight. Doesn't seem to be a good business model.
Professor Althouse, perhaps like Professor Grundy, does not consider students as teacher’s customers. I wonder why? Is having customers demeaning to the elevated concept that Professors have of themselves? Is it the town and gown phenomenon where the academics don’t wish to be confused with the shopkeepers? The reality is that students come to the factory grandly titled “The University” to acquire credentials. They pay money for those credentials. They may learn something, I sincerely hope they do, but it’s not really critical as long as they leave credentialed.
I can understand how, when you live in an echo chamber, you tell each other that you’re not really like those others outside of the academy who have to satisfy grubby "customers." As someone who has customers (In my business they are called “clients” because we too like to think better of ourselves) I educate my customers, they become my friends and I help them improve their lives in very real ways. Some rely totally on me. But in the end, I provide a service for a fee, just like a shopkeeper, a bookkeeper or the fellow on the Ford Assembly line. I am told that the person easiest to fool is oneself and Professor Althouse is exhibit A.
I believe it was Professor Althouse who implied that Professor Gruber was throwing out racist and sexist slurs as a way of challenging her students. Since she has not yet begun teaching and it’s not at all certain that her students will be reading her twitter comments, am I correct in thinking that Professor Althouse is fucking with us? Perhaps it’s well-disguised parody of academy-speak. It’s hard to tell.
The difference is Geller always qualifies her remarks by informing everyone that she is not anti-Muslim, but anti-jihadi, anti-sharia. Had this professor stated that white men who commit crimes or attack other people are a "problem population", then she would have been perfectly correct and nobody would contradict her. As it is, her statement is nothing but ignorant vicious bigotry. Yet, the same assholes who assail Geller will fall over themselves to defend and agree with this pathetic progressive feminist academic ideologue.
Moneyrunner said...
...am I correct in thinking that Professor Althouse is fucking with us? Perhaps it’s well-disguised parody of academy-speak. It’s hard to tell.
Good question and just the sort I was asking 3.5 years ago when I imaged Althouse to be some sort of Professor Kingsfield and wrote "Tweaking Socrates."
These people aren't saying it's good that she got attacked.
They are saying "her skirt was too short, she had it coming".
Is that what you're saying too?
"If I were her, would I let me follow me? Probably not."
That's like me and Facebook. I refuse to friend anyone who will accept a person like me as a friend.
I thought racists could not be college professors. Did I miss something? Is it academic freedom to hire the Klan or the Black Panthers?
I thought racism was the one disqualifying thing for all polite society because race never matters.
I feel like the Civil Rights movement has vanished into an alternative universe or dimension.
Professor, why is it ok to employ a racist as a college professor?
So let me get this straight. In the name of knee-jerk defense of all profs, Ann Althouse is defending this racist jerk's right to inflict her racism on white male students in the name of....
Well, it is not like it is a big deal. They were probably splooge stoogies anyway....
The professor should get the benefit of the doubt unless there's evidence that she's mistreating white male students.
How long would a White male professor who wrote "Black women aren't a problem, they are the problem." last?
Ann Althouse is defending this racist jerk's right to inflict her racism on white male students in the name of....
How long would a White male professor who wrote "Black women aren't a problem, they are the problem." last?
Heh. If Althouse really believe in her defense, I challenge her to write an opinion piece for the NYTs or somesuch claiming "Black men are the problem"
Of course, she never would. Which tells you everything about the integrity of her argument.
I can smell her rotten snatch from here.
Fen said...
Ann Althouse is defending this racist jerk's right to inflict her racism on white male students in the name of....
How long would a White male professor who wrote "Black women aren't a problem, they are the problem." last?
Heh. If Althouse really believe in her defense, I challenge her to write an opinion piece for the NYTs or somesuch claiming "Black men are the problem"
Of course, she never would. Which tells you everything about the integrity of her argument.
You're a "white male" right? That she allows your comment to be published and stand on her (some such) blog tells about the integrity of her free speech values.
I challenge her to write an opinion piece for the NYTs or somesuch claiming "Black men are the problem"
I think that it would probably be better with Black women, or maybe even Black lesbian feminists. Getting more and more "oppressed" classes involved just to make a point.
Still, it is turning out to be interesting the proportion of lesbians leading the feminist movement and esp. in teaching gender studies. And, who are primarily behind the campus "rape" epidemic.
That is the philosophy. I don't see much difference between her and Geithner except he has far more power. He has admitted biases that prevent him from processing clearly, everyone does.
So, professors and people in power have admitted biases that potentially hurt one segment or another of those subject to their whims. They may not voice these biases or they may voice them with more poise, but they are still there.
So, how to ensure that those they are biased against don't get the shaft when grading? That the graders remain professional? (Having your GSIs or TAs do the actual grading is always popular. ;))
I would guess we've all dealt with this on a macro or micro level. Maybe the prof just doesn't like you personally, or likes you too much. This could extend into women, men, political philosophies.
Wow, with the compare/contrast of Geller and the BU prof and then layered on top, the opinions of the Professor and ST, this whole thread is so meta.
Not very enlightening but very meta.
Late to the party. Perhaps no one will read this.
I greatly value free speech and of the opinion that no one should lose their job because of what they say. The only possible exception is when what they say makes it impossible to do their job, such as public relations rep trashing the company he or she represents. Now if those opinions result in actions that do not allow the person to do the job, then that is another story. You get paid to do a job and if you do not do the job you get canned regardless if that is because you are a racist or because you party all night and do not show up for work.
I also greatly value academic freedom and, again, what a person says should not endanger an academic job. Unpopular and provocative opinions needs to be heard. Most of them may be garbage, but sometimes the crank has a point. Again, if the opinions prevent the academic from doing his or her job, then they should be fired. If the racist teacher fails everyone he or she hates regardless of actual performance, then that teacher has to go.
The problem here is these are NOT the ideals of academia. They say they are when it suits them, like in this case. However, this is the world of political correctness and microaggressions and privilege and "hate speech" that is applied with bias against one side. If you tell me that Boston U. has a bunch of conservative and Christian professors that are allowed to speak freely and research what they wish, then I will believe that there "free speech" argument is sincere. However, I sense much bad faith.
I like when Althouse goes 'round the bend in her own comments. Let's challenge people to stand on first principles when the situations are not analogous, just because Althouse cannot see why there are important differences. Sad. Funny. Disconnected from reality.
That's like me and Facebook. I refuse to friend anyone who will accept a person like me as a friend.
HeY! Me too! Lets get together on fa........wait.
Go fuck yourself.
Ha ha!
Post a Comment