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
Aridog,
There was an interesting article in The Federalist a couple of days ago about “insurgency” candidates and Rand Paul being one of them.
“Treating voters as if they are ‘an enlightened and rational people’ might just produce a Republican presidential candidate worthy of the name.”
http://thefederalist.com/2014/12/15/how-a-conservative-insurgent-can-win-the-2016-gop-presidential-nomination/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=e7e9e203a0-RSS_DAILY_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-e7e9e203a0-79248369
Um, yeah, I think we are headed to another civil war because I just cannot imagine how we shall ever see eye to eye. We do not share the same facts, and we pick the speck out of each other’s eye while ignoring the plank in our own. Can we agree on anything?
Very good post Jane!
RRex I googled teacher fail students who did not vote Democratic or for Obama. using all of your words or some variant of this and found nothing. You have a cite for that.
Nick you keep proclaiming its known its documented. Where?
It is against military regulations for servicemen and women to use their uniform or position for political speech/activity. I believe this professor should have a forum to express her views but she should not be able to use her academic position to express them. This will have a chilling effect on the speech of the students.
God bless Barack Obama for his “audacity” and egotism. By believing HIS presidency would be the one to fundamentally transform America to the point of no return, he has accomplished just the opposite. He has succeeded in dividing the nation not by party but by ideology. Big government progressives (R and D) on one side and limited-government constitutionalists on the other; only the latter constituency is offended by Jonathan Gruber because they know he is correct.
Man oh man, how things have changed. The 1960’s weren’t all bad IMO. In college I had classes taught by two admitted card carrying communists, and did well in both, despite my open disagreement with much of what they said in class. One was in Madison and the other in Detroit, both at state universities. Back then it was to provoke debate and discussion. No “hate” was expressed…I suspect because they were confident enough in their own beliefs to not lash out like some snotty kid. One complimented me on a paper i wrote, saying it was very good “propaganda”…all the while giving me an “A” for the paper. Oddly, in those days I became a Democrat of the JFK kind. Later I voted for “the peace candidate” twice (1964 and 1968) and discovered both went to war anyway….so I enlisted, better to join ’em than not I guess.
That said, in this U of M case…I’d suggest the nice professor take a look at who signs her paycheck, so to speak. Republicans pay taxes too. She probably can’t imagine election vote splitters…how dare they, eh? In all of the elections I’ve voted in since 1964 I’ve split my votes, except for one. Not hard to do here in Michigan because our rules permit initially voting a straight ticket if you chose, and still allows one to vote the opposite on individual candidates…it is called “plunking.” I have no idea why….but it does serve to give voters a real choice not dictated solely by party affiliation. I lean heavily Republican now, but respect any candidate who has done what they promised on behalf of their constituency.
Being from Michigan I am aware that in our state little differs between party affiliations except the lapel pins. Fact is, our very worst of all time no exceptions high taxing dweeb governor was a “Republican”…in name only IMO. He gave us both a permanent income tax as well as a well closeted VAT tax that had no pass through credits such as those in Canada. The man devised the perfect “politician’s tax”…one that taxes labor per se and must be paid in loss years as well as profit years…e.g., always due, even if there is no “income” from which to pay it. Now THAT is a truly mind blowing accomplishment.
Real Liberal, Good to read your first post. I am a conservative libertarian and also hope Rand Paul gets a chance. To me, he should be a unifier. I don’t agree with everything he says but I find myself agreeing with him on many issues sometimes for different reasons. Some of the biggest issues we face can get consensus if you show a solution that provides both sides with a win. Me fear is though that both extremes will shut him down. I can almost guarantee that Ol’ Hill will be our next president.
Disclosure: I am an Instructor in Neurological Rehabilitation.
Set aside the right/left or political party discussion for a moment and focus on the real “crime” being perpetrated. You have a Chair of the Communication Dept. using written rhetorical manipulations, disguised as “opinion”. Communication Dept.’s are not about types of hardware delivering the message. They are experts in the history of the use of both oral and written rhetoric and its impact on society. This is an expertly written rhetorical meme, with an intention. It is no accident that the first line, delivers the hate, followed by a carefully constructed parsing of the English language to couch in free speech opinion and provide cover for “excusing” the very act of hating, the demise of which the PC culture has portended to be all about. Wordsmiths in the Communication Dept. are experts in propaganda of all kinds and all intentions. They are experts in the use and/or misuse of words and the impact language has on culture and society. Of course you are triggered to stand up for this as free speech, the right even absolute need for academic freedom to expression of all kinds is our higher calling. Make no mistake, the Chair of the Communications Dept. is a trigger for the rationale…the opinion essay the blue print. Keep your rabbit ears tuned and in the upright position…you will see this repeated and repeated and repeated. You will see it here. You will see it there. You will see it everywhere. Because that’s how rhetorical memes of this type work and have worked for centuries. The English language be damned.
Issac,
Your blindness to reality is pretty shocking. You’re worried about the right taking us back, and selective arguments? How about looking at the left?
Do we need to remind you who’s idea first amendment zones were? Or Title IX kangaroo trials? Did you miss the UVa story that showed even as ALL the facts came crumbling down, the progressives tried to convince us the truth doesn’t matter and the underlying narrative (that they created) is what’s important?
This is where Susan Douglas comes from
Ty Nick, I forgot to add Wall Street to the list of things that have hijacked the Democratic Party. God knows how I missed that major player. The party is a disgrace. Both parties should be shut down.
I don’t hate Republicans. I am offended by them in our society. I fear constantly that they will take America further back. They frustrate the bjsus out of me. I am constantly amazed how narrow their perspective is. It never ceases to amaze me how selective the foundations of their arguments are. I wonder if there is some way to drain their vitriol, just to see if there is a working brain in there. It would be humorous when they express themselves if it weren’t so scary, i.e. Bush. I am flabbergasted when I hear their freedoms expressed in the wealth of the top one percent and the demise of the rest of America.
But, I don’t hate Republicans.
Jeff, do you want to know the truth?
This country will do one of 3 things very soon. Very very soon.
1. Civil Libertarians will unite to form a Majority party that will defeat the Establishment that controls the 2 major parties. People will reject war, NWO/Bilderberg, the UN, Big govt, the Military Industrial Complex/Homeland Defense, Wall St and political correctness. All of those are generally tied together these days.
The biggest opposition to this is the sheer money in the two major parties as well as the Progressives control of the media.
2. Revolution. Do not laugh. We are alot closer than people realize. This will be the likely result if 1 fails in 2016. I suggest stocking up on food and water. As well as ammo if you are liberty oriented.
3. Civil Split. If 1 does not happen, 2 fails to materialize, then this will be the result. At some point the states, which are easier to get control of, will be taken over by people sick of the GOP and Dems. They will end up with states attempting to break off the same way the Confederacy did. They would not fail this time. More than happy to explain how the North loses badly on another go around.
This Professor is ironically funny. In a less polarized society, this article would be considered satire. Her original Title for this article reminds me of the Old “MAD” Magazine Her arguments are so one sided that how can she be taken seriously, Her article reads like the rants of an unschooled, unperceptive teenager. She is selective in her support of her point of view. She therefore destroys the article. If she had been egalitarian in her analysis, a more proper title could have been “Politics is a Career for Hypocrites”.
Please do not forget the First Amendment.
Real Liberal, Very good comment!
hinky, Come on! Take a wild guess what her reaction to a student would be who expressed contrary views. As a worldly man in my 40’s returning to school, I SAW how professors like this treat students w/ contrary views. They can intimidate teens and early 20 year olds. Those bully professors had a problem w/ me. That said, while I did not have one professor who I would call conservative, I did have several intellectually honest liberal professors. And, when I gave my libertarian views, younger students felt safe giving their less than “progressive” views. I have said here many times, I have hope. Many young people are libertarians. They do not expect the govt. to take care of them and they do not trust the govt. They YEARN for more choices and they may well be the generation that finally eviscerates the duopoly.
leejcaroll please do not call yourself a ‘Liberal’. You are a Progressive.
Professor Turley is a true Liberal for example. Liberals are for freedom and Civil Liberties even if its something we personally do not care for ourselves.
Btw to call this blog a ‘very rightwing oriented blog’ is hilarious. Apparently anything that doesnt fit your narrative or agenda is ‘far right’. Oh how quickly we forget the love from the Left that Jonathan Turley had when Bush was in office.
All your post and the Progressives criticism of this blog has revealed is, the sheer amount of hypocrisy that riddles both parties today. You are no better than the right that complain about Obama doing what Bush did.
I am personally sick and tired of the Democratic party being hijacked by the commies, feminists, gays and Politically Correct agenda. It has gone way too far.
People like the woman who wrote the article that this thread is about, is a prime example of the rotten core that has permeated throughout and hijacked the Democratic party.
I find it hilarious that the Progressives have forced the Right to split from the Bush-Reagan big govt Establishment back to an actual Whig vs Federalist level. So many on the right have become so sick of the Progressive/Establishment machine that they are even rejecting the standard GOP Establishment now.
Want to know something REALLY funny? Intellectually honest Liberals, the real ones, and the Tea Party Conservatives, the real ones and not the religious right or cloaked Establishment types, are finding themselves politically aligned. Even more than aligned, but actual partners.
So to the Bushies and the Proggies, congrats, you are succeeding in uniting the Civil Libertarians of the country. At least we can be thankful to you for that.
So here is to the death of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. May they rot in hell where they belong.
Lets get this party started. Ive run out of patience with the Establishment that runs both parties, the Religious Right and the Progressive Commies.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/im-a-liberal-democrat-im_b_6169542.html
I’m a Liberal Democrat. I’m Voting for Rand Paul in 2016. Here Is Why.
By H. A. Goodman
Columnist and journalist published in Salon.com, The Hill’s Congress Blog, and other publications. Author of Logic of Demons http://www.hagoodman.com
I wounder if JT would have supported the teacher had she written, “I hate Jews”?.
And I’m sorry leejcaroll, the left is the most intolerant bunch I have ever met.
For a professor of communications I do not believe that Ms. Douglas used language that did not communicate her primary point, which that it is acceptable to her to dislike some other persons’ political positions and to voice that dislike. The word “hate” signifies an intense emotion, but is used too freely by some to condemn contrary opinions held by others. For example the use of the term “hate speech” is wildly overused in an attempt to shut down other persons opinions. I may truly hate mass murderers, but I do not “hate” individual persons who hold political or social views that I find abhorrent. Thus, I can agree with Ms. Douglas’ views regarding “having to spend the next two years watching Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Ted Cruz, Darrell Issa or any of the legions of other blowhards …”, but I do not believe even she truly hates those persons. She needs to improve her communications skills.
That said, I wait to see her reaction to persons who express contrary opinions. Will she tolerate those opinions or will she retreat to the “hate speech” defense used by some academics to shut down those contrary opinions. Thus, I have no problem in her views (many of which I agree with), but the real issue is what actions she will take in the future to tolerate contrary opinions (which I may not agree with).
Any ideas how we can turn around this rapidly increasing polarization or what will happen to our country if we cannot?
No and yes.