The provocatively titled course has come in for some criticism and today we see 2 state legislators — threatening to obstruct state funding and approval of a tuition increase — are calling on the University to cancel the course and fire the professor:
One of the lawmakers, Rep. Dave Murphy of Greenville.... said he concluded the professor teaching the course, Damon Sajnani, should be dismissed because of tweets he posted on Twitter after five Dallas police officers were killed by a sniper on July 7.
In one tweet, posted at 10:36 p.m. the day the officers were killed, Sajnani included a photo of news coverage and wrote, “Is the uprising finally starting? Is this style of protest gonna go viral?” Earlier that night, Sajnani had tweeted a link to a song on YouTube called “Officer Down” and wrote, “Watching CNN, this is the song I am currently enjoying in my head.”
Murphy said in a statement Tuesday that he was "extremely concerned that UW-Madison finds it appropriate to teach a course called, ‘The Problem of Whiteness,’ with the premise that white people are racist.” “Even more troubling," Murphy wrote, "the course is taught by a self-described 'international radical' professor whose views are a slap in the face to the taxpayers who are expected to pay for this garbage."
Murphy said he didn't understand "how a University that preaches political correctness can stand by a professor who openly condones violence against law enforcement and compares white voters to the KKK." UW-Madison must drop the class, Murphy said. "If UW-Madison stands with this professor, I don’t know how the University can expect the taxpayers to stand with UW-Madison.”Murphy indicates that he's looking through various "areas of the university" for courses that are not — as he sees it — "legit."
"We will not take a knee-jerk reaction to anything just because it has a word in it that hurts people's sensibilities. I realize college is a place to discuss ideas that aren't necessarily everybody's idea of how things out to be," Murphy said. "But I want to make sure there's legitimate education going on. I'm broken-hearted that this is something I have to be involved in."Yeah? Me too.
Governor Scott Walker has a better attitude, I'd say. He just called the course "goofy" and "unusual" and said he didn't think "the governor should be telling people what classes they should or shouldn't have." Well put!
FIRE takes the principled position we've come to expect: "Wisconsin Lawmakers Once Again Threaten Academic Freedom."
Thankfully... the university offered a robust defense of free speech on campus when “Provost Sarah Mangelsdorf said the university ‘supports the First Amendment rights of its students, faculty and staff, including their use of social media tools to express their views on race, politics or other topics, in their capacity as a private citizen.’”And here's Conor Friedersdorf in The Atlantic:
It’s good to see the University of Wisconsin–Madison take this principled stance in the face of legislative pressure. Hopefully, the legislature will drop these misguided and even unconstitutional threats.
[C]onservatives, liberals, and libertarians should all be able to agree that consistent, principled defenses of free speech norms are indispensable at institutions of higher education, and that their absence is most damaging to marginalized students. Uniting against illiberalism on the right and left is the best course. Otherwise, political groups will waste their efforts on an interminable fight to censor one another, instead of defending the values that serve them all.Exactly.
Posts
208 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 208 of 208The man's background is interesting. It reminds me of a joke I heard a black comedian tell about Rachel Dolezal. I guess NAACP in Seattle stands for Non-African American crazy people!"
For an American Black to be "woke" means they finally get that the Democrats have been exploiting them - using them - for votes.
Many American Blacks are woke to the fact that they voted for the color of someone's skin (identity politics) and not the character of that person. What has he done for those stuck in nightmare cities like Detroit and Chicago? Not much.
My Irish Ma said back in the LBJ "War on Poverty" days that herding blacks into Sec. 8 urban high rises was nothing better than keeping them in plantations from slavery times. And she was so wise.
This fall in Washington DC there was a celebrated opening of the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture and guess what?
There is not one mention in this government,taxpayer supported, one percent loving elite (mostly white BTW) of the fact that an American Black Citizen who rose from poverty to be now - this moment - an American Supreme Court Justice - Clarence Thomas.
Wait -they do give a moment in this Smithsonian Museum to Anita Hill.
I dream that a Trump presidency will pressure the Smithsonian to get a Clarence Thomas exhibit up and running ----you know....on budget and before deadline.
He should include this matter in his first State of the Union speech - IMHO.
Don't presume to tell me what I do or don't know. My presence here goes back a very long time, and I seriously doubt anyone who reads my comments (which is evidently no one but you, but feel free to search the archives for the ones you've missed) would think that I'm trying to justify the wrong side of this. And having just chaired two faculty search committees for our department, I can assure you that the political views of the candidates was never even remotely discussed.
The commentor wants to convince us that American academia is impartial and unbiased but studies, polls and just ordinary common sense indicate the opposite.
Young American minds have been filled with pseudo-Marxist anti-American bullshit starting in the sixties when the universities were taken over by Leftwing students. It did not take long for faculties and universities to follow their lead. Since then academia has been eagerly handing out anti-American propaganda thinly disguised as curriculum. Those same Lefty students became faculty and are now about due to retire after having poisoned countless young brains with propaganda.
Personal anecdotes, even when true, are useless for purpose of debate. Personal anecdotes prove absolutely nothing.
I can't say the same for other departments, as many of them appear to be pretty monolithic.
This is why personal anecdotes are pointless. Here the commentor more or less ADMITS he doesn’t know shit about academic bias, even at his own college. .
Honestly, most people in my department are reluctant to discuss politics …
Yeah, I’ll bet they are VERY reluctant – if they value their careers. Here the commentor actually illustrates the chilling effect that political bias has in academia.
"The commentor wants to convince us that American academia is impartial and unbiased but studies, polls and just ordinary common sense indicate the opposite."
Utter horseshit. Reading comprehension apparently escapes you. Where in the FUCK did I make such a statement? Quote it directly or go get your shinebox.
See, here's the thing: I've never in my life even insinuated such a thing, much less put it in a blog comment. Why? Because I know it's not true. I know (better than you do, apparently) just how far left academia is skewed.
Either provide the direct quote from me (stating that academia is impartial and unbiased), or shut the fuck up.
Know what the most ridiculous part of all of this is? I actually agree with you, but you won't let me. Please quit making shit up about who I am and what I believe.
"Here the commentor more or less ADMITS he doesn’t know shit about academic bias, even at his own college."
Oh yes, you've tricked me into admitting something I've freely stated many, many, many times over the years.
"Yeah, I’ll bet they are VERY reluctant – if they value their careers. Here the commentor actually illustrates the chilling effect that political bias has in academia."
Missed the point. Entirely.
Obviously, Grackle enjoys being punch drunk. Cut you losses. You were missing his message the whole time. No big deal.
I don't see this as a free speech issue, but rather an academic freedom issue. Faculty should be given broad latitude when it comes to what is or is not protected by academic freedom. This is necessary if the ever-popular "free exchange of ideas" is to occur.
Q. If “faculty” is given “broad latitude” to define what “academic freedom” is, doesn’t that perpetuate race-baiting, America-hating garbage like the course which is the subject of the post? Should professors be allowed to offer up political and cultural bullshit as scholarship fit for a university and learning fit for young impressionable minds? Is THAT the “broad latitude?” It’s not clear and doesn’t get any more clear later on.
But.........non-tenured faculty would be well-advised to be judicious in applying their academic freedom (i.e., you need to shut up and do what you're told in order that you might get tenure so you can then really speak your mind; not fair, I know, but a simple fact).
If the above isn’t a matter-of-fact illustration of the chilling effect of the lack of “academic freedom” due to the leftwing bubble in academia then I suppose no argument would suffice to convince.
More importantly, the protections afforded by academic freedom should end where the student's right to fair and equal treatment begins. A course description that leaves anyone with any doubts about whether the instructor will treat all students in the course fairly is not wise, at best.
If what is determined as “fair and equal” depends on some star chamber “appeals committee” of fellow faculty members then I have to question their ability to be impartial. The final sentence leaves us with a CYA bromide.
I suppose academic freedom dictates that the faculty member be given the chance to prove they can treat all students fairly.
Another banality. Of course students should be treated “fairly,” and not be penalized if they disagree with Lefty bullshit offered by a professor in the classroom but that’s kind of irrelevant if most of the other students, largely uninformed about most issues, swallow this race-baiting shit hook, line and sinker.
So the course description itself assumes all white people are racists. I don't see how that's defensible. Suppose I had a course description that explicitly assumes all black people are criminals, all Latinos are illegal aliens, etc. Think that'll fly? I would hope not.
The main purpose of the above seems to be to inform us that the commentor is a teacher of some sort. His first “humble brag” anecdotal info. Thus ends the commentor’s first post of 12/21/16, 8:52 PM
You seem to think I'm defending this bigot. I believe the rest of my comment touches on what would happen at my institution if a course with the description of this one contained students who were dinged for disagreeing with the instructor.
Here the commentor berates another commentor for being confused(understandably, I think) about his first post.
A grade appeals committee (which I have chaired) would likely uphold the appeal.
Ah … here we go with the commentor’s anecdotal “appeals committee” shit. He throws in another “humble brag”(“ … which I chaired … “) while he’s at it.
Such committees at my university consider two criteria: 1) was the grading rubric made clear in the syllabus, and 2) was the grading done uniformly and fairly. Having direct evidence of bigotry on the part of the instructor would go a long ways towards addressing criterion #2.
Window dressing. More “humble bragging” anecdotal filler.
Believe it or not, academic freedom helps those on the right more than the left (though it applies equally to all), given how hostile the average university is to opinions of the right.
Who are “those” in the commentor’s phrase, “those on the right?” Are they students, who may be conservative, who might disagree in the classroom with a Lefty professor’s propaganda offered as a course of study?
Or is the commentor referring to the suppression of rightwing ideas on campus in general, such as banning the handing out of conservative leaflets, shouting down conservative speakers, shunning conservative students, etc. Who knows? Clearness in expression is NOT the commentor’s strong point. Thus ends the comment at 12/22/16, 9:15 AM
As to this and other claims that academic freedom doesn't apply to those on the right, I'm proof that is incorrect.
The commentor comes to this debate armed with a fount of personal anecdote and he’s determined to use it all. Note to commentor: Anecdote is not debate, anecdote is not argument, anecdote doesn’t contribute to credibility, anecdote is “proof” of nothing. You can thank me later.
And there are more than a few other faculty at my institution who openly hold ideas that are badthink. I don't get much chance to get into politics in my field (I prefer to stick to the subject, though I do tend to throw in some amusing or interesting anecdotes). If politics comes up in the context of science (usually as a result of a question), I speak my mind. As I am respectful and responsible in doing so, anybody who doesn't like my opinion can fuck off.
As General Rosecrans put it: "To threats of removal or the like I must be permitted to say that I am insensible."
More “humble brag;” “ … I do tend to throw in some amusing or interesting anecdotes …” Yeah, and they are probably just as effective in the classroom as they are here – and thus ends the commentor at 12/22/16, 11:57 AM and thus ends my more complete critique.
Post a Comment