University of Michigan Communications Professor Susan Douglas is at the center of a controversy over a column that she wrote for In These Times entitled “It’s Okay To Hate Republicans.” The title was changed after Douglas complained that it did not represent the content of her column which began with the line “I hate Republicans.”
Douglas is the Catherine Neafie Kellogg Professor of Communication Studies at The University of Michigan and Chair of the Department. Her past work includes Enlightened Sexism: The Seductive Message That Feminism’s Work Is Done (Times Books/Henry Holt, 2010); The Mommy Myth: The Idealization of Motherhood and How it Undermines Women; and Where The Girls Are: Growing Up Female with the Mass Media (Times Books, 1994; Penguin, 1995). She received her B.A. from Elmira College and her M.A. and Ph.D. from Brown University. She has written for The Nation, In These Times, The Village Voice, Ms., The Washington Post and TV Guide.
Authors usually do not choose their headlines. Indeed, it is a common complaint. I never have any say in the headlines of my columns in USA Today and other newspaper and I have been burned in the past with some headlines. Most readers do not realize that authors usually see the headlines for the first time when they do — when the piece is published.
On this occasion, the headline does not seem wildly out of place given the leading line. However, Douglas originally entitled the column “We Can’t All Just Get Along.”
In These Times ran an Editor’s Note:
Editor’s note: This article was originally titled “We Can’t All Just Get Along” in the print version of the magazine. The title was then changed, without the author’s knowledge or approval, to “It’s Okay to Hate Republicans.” The author rejects the online title as not representative of the piece or its main points. Her preferred title has been restored. We have also removed from the “Comments” section all threats to the author’s life and personal safety.
The column’s content however have created a firestorm. Douglas begins with “I hate Republicans. I can’t stand the thought of having to spend the next two years watching Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Ted Cruz, Darrell Issa or any of the legions of other blowhards denying climate change, thwarting immigration reform or championing fetal ‘personhood.'” She even said that she once liked and even worked for a Republican but that “Today, marrying a Republican is unimaginable to me.” That type of “some of my best friends were Republicans but I would not marry one” approach does not sit well with some students.
She then says that if things have become too poisonous . . . well, the Republicans started it: “This isn’t like a fight between siblings, where the parent says, “It doesn’t matter who started it.” Yes, it does.” She cites “Spiro Agnew’s attack on intellectuals as an ‘effete corps of impudent snobs’; to Rush Limbaugh’s hate speech; to the GOP’s endless campaign to smear the Clintons over Whitewater, then bludgeon Bill over Monica Lewinsky; to the ceaseless denigration of President Obama (“socialist,” “Muslim”).”
The column has been denounced as hateful by students and outside groups. Some have raised Michigan’s anti-discrimination policy which states that people affiliated with the university cannot create “…an intimidating, hostile, offensive, or abusive environment for that individual’s employment, education, living environment, or participation in a University activity.” I strongly disagree with those who are seeking to punish Douglas for her writings despite my equally strong disagreement with the column. This is a matter of free speech and academic freedom in my view. If such views are now subject to academic discipline as matters of hate speech, there will be little left of free speech on campuses.
We have previously discussed the alarming rollback on free speech rights in the West, particularly in France (here and here and here and here and here and here) and England ( here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here). Much of this trend is tied to the expansion of hate speech and non-discrimination laws. We have even seen comedians targets with such court orders under this expanding and worrisome trend. (here and here).
Having said that, Douglas works hard to justify hate for others. After listing sins going back to Spiro Agnew (despite equally insulting statements about Republicans by Democratic leaders), Douglas concludes “So now we hate them back. And for good reason. Which is too bad.”
I think the whole piece fits in the “too bad” column. It is too bad that an academic feels the need to justify hate for an entire group. It is too bad that she shows little willingness to acknowledge similar attacks from her side. However, none of that justifies calls for discipline for an academic in speaking her mind on contemporary issues. She was clearly venting in an honest, albeit provocative way. Like many academic writers, she was clearly interested in starting a debate and she succeeded. If people view this as hate speech, it is still free speech and the solution to bad speech is good speech.
Source: Mlive
After stating these views, how can any student with right-leaning views feel like her classroom is a forum for open discussion of ideas? Any student who does not agree with her views may, justifiably, be concerned that she will treat such student in a hostile and disparate manner because she “hates” him or her.
OtB is quite correct. How can any student who holds conservative views feel anything but fear in her classroom. Knowing that the professor ‘hates” you just because you hold some different ideas. Knowing that no matter what you do in the classroom or what work you turn in it will be judged not on the merits but on who you are.
For those who say it isn’t hate speech. Try this mental exercise. Substitute Jews for Republicans. Change the Republican names to some prominent Jewish names. OR.. even this. Substitute Blacks as the hated groups. Throw in Al Sharpton and some other prominent names.
Would you now classify this has HATE speech? I would. Why would it not be hateful speech if it is Republicans?
TRY, if you can, to envision this. You are a Democrat and have obtained a degree in a field…perhaps computer programming. The company that would provide the best chance for advancing your career and which you dearly would like to work at, has the CEO publishing an article and stating loudly that he HATES Democrats. That they make his skin crawl. It makes him sick to be in the same room with them. How welcome do you feel about applying for a job. Would you consider his statements discriminatory?
If you say yes, but do not condemn these same actions by this professor……you are hypocrites.
University of Michigan is a great school, but I guess they to have bad Apples just like other Universities do.
Do you remember the student who got in to trouble because the teacher wanted him to stump of his faith? That “Stump on Jesus” story hit big.
What about the teacher who said she would fail all her students who did not vote Democratic or for Obama.
Are the students being taught the subject they signed up for?
Are they being taught hatred to others or at others?
Where are we headed? Is this healthy?
Sanctions to teachers who express their views like this are hurting not only the school but also the students.
This country was a house divided and a lot of people had to die, and it is still divided.
As JT, myself, and a few others constantly say, the duopoly is, in large part, the reason for the toxic atmosphere. We need more than 2 poles. Think of a family. I grew up in family w/ 4 kids. While we had acrimony @ times, it was diffused. Two child families have similar “polarization.” One child families, don’t get me started!!
“Jeff Silberman
Any ideas how we can turn around this rapidly increasing polarization or what will happen to our country if we cannot?”
Yes, we need more calling out of extremists like this woman on both sides of the issue. And probably to wait another 20 years for the warriors of the 60’s and 70’s to go away and let adults have the conversation.
We also need to fix the language in this country. Tolerance =/= acceptance. Intellectuallism isn’t a bad thing or limited to one political persuasion. And neither side have a monopoly on the truth.
Oh wait theirs more, the Demos are den’t done yet.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/18/volcker-rule-federal-reserve_n_6351190.html
Any ideas how we can turn around this rapidly increasing polarization or what will happen to our country if we cannot?
Yes those dirty hateful Repos. Putting a Citi bank written law into place that puts the taxpayers on the hook if their “investments” don’t pan out. And increasing the amount a person can give a political party. Yes those dirty Repos. Which much include Harry Reid and Mr Obama because they also strongly pushed those measures.
Anybody that things their is an ounce of difference between a Repo and a Demo is deluding themselves.
The problem on campuses, and it’s well documented, is if the thought is reciprocated it is censored.
Free speech is indeed dead in the US.
Well, I don’t think there really are any real liberals or conservatives anymore, just names. Not to highjack a thread, but apparently our high-principled Democratic President worked hard to get the banking industry a big win in the latest budget debacle. I guess I hate people who won’t stand up and label themselves as individuals. Got to hand it to the whitest Native American I’ve seen (well, next to this one…) at least she spoke up.
http://america.aljazeera.com/blogs/scrutineer/2014/12/15/cramming-the-cromnibusrushedspendingbillcreatessystemicmoralhaza.html?utm_campaign=wklynewsletter121814&utm_medium=email&utm_source=editorialnewsletter
Publicly expressed blanket intolerance in a free society is a bad thing. I respect everyone’s rights to private views. But when a leader speaks out like this it’s important to understand who she is leading in order to measure the appropriateness of her comments. In this case when you’re leading impressionable students I think the comments are highly inappropriate and the university should take action to distance itself from her viewpoints. Teachers should not be allowed to teach intolerance.
We may have a Marquette grad here who would like to weigh in on this?
OtB, I am in my 60’s. In the 1990’s I returned to college to get my teaching certification. Right, or even right leaning opinions ARE NOT TOLERATED in discussions. wwwthefire.org has examples on a regular basis. The far left have taken over the education industry and there are few leftists here who even comment on threads like this, knowing that is the case. It is UNDENIABLE. I would give my libertarian opinion FREELY, something that would not shock regular folks here. I would see the 20 something students smiling and nodding their heads. Some would join w/ trepidation, knowing their grades are @ risk. We discussed on a thread last nigh a political science professor @ Marquette, standing up for a student on his blog. The student does not support gay marriage. A philosophy professor shut down the class discussion when this student had the temerity to provide his view. JOHN McAdams was suspended!
And for pity sake, don’t apologize.
…one should accept the truth from whatever source it proceeds. -Maimonides
Even a racist or a Socialist can make a good point which is why it does not matter what you believe or who you are; just make your argument and give your evidence.
How do we determine who is and isn’t OK to hate when publishing an article? ISIS? Al Qaeda? Taliban? Russians? Palestinians? North Koreans? Syrians? Just the leaders of those countries? President Obama? Congress? Muslims? gays? Nazis? Abortion providers? Criminals – but only if they come from poverty? Undocumented immigrants? Or is it just that the word “hate” shouldn’t be used, but killing those groups is just fine?
While I agree that treating her comments as hate speech is not appropriate, by writing this column she has significantly weakened here future ability to effectively teach her students. After stating these views, how can any student with right-leaning views feel like her classroom is a forum for open discussion of ideas? Any student who does not agree with her views may, justifiably, be concerned that she will treat such student in a hostile and disparate manner because she “hates” him or her. This fact should be of concern to the University. Bottom line is that she has undermined her own credibility and effectiveness in a very public manner and that should concern the University
.
The professor need only read the vitriol, more often from the right, on this blog to see she has a point. There is no middle ground it seems anymore. Those on the “liberal” side are “cultists” lack intelligence and reasoning ability and been called names on this blog. If you comment and are “liberal” it is often ignored, at least by some, and instead mischaracterized, even rewritten to either be that you said something you never did or did not answer a question(s) that you have answered more then once.
I do not notice this same kind of what appears to be hatred of the right by those on the left here until after they have been called out by the right. (That does not mean it doesn’t happen.) I think part of it is that it appears this blog has become very right wing oriented and those on the “other side: are less vocal and here less often, possibly like me, feeling for much of the time it is not worth the effort.
(It was nice the other day when 2 people on the ‘right’ actually came out and defended one of the liberals here (me) and letting one of the right wingers know in fact his question had been answered . It does happen. And in my mind needs to be for both sides when someone makes a good point. Instead the debate seems to be less and the pointing fingers, meanness, etc more. (Sry folks, just my take)
It’s okay to hate republicans:
REPUBLICAN STUDENTS AT UMICH: YOUR COMMUNICATIONS CHAIR HATES YOU
by GREG PIPER – ASSISTANT EDITOR on DECEMBER 17, 2014
THE COLLEGE FIX
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/20538/