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
A State College or University (I use capital letters for a reason) are of course run by state agents. A “state actor” or “state agent” is a term of importance in civil rights litigation under 42 United States Code Section 1983 and Section 1985. If a state actor, someone acting under color of state law, deprives some other person of a right protected by the constitution (a right illustrated in the Constitution or Bill of Rights or any other Amendment) then the victim or person offended may seek redress in the courts. Redress in the courts can be in the form of a declaratory judgment and injunction and can also be for damages against the defendants. So, if the President of some went in dumb, come out dumb too, state university implements a policy which impedes a civil right, then the President can be sued. But, what may you ask is the “civil right” or right found in the Constitution for which the courts may grant protection. Well, the right to petition your government for redress of grievances under the First Amendment is one such right. Say, for example that the went in dumb, come out dumb too, state university has a Young Republicans Club on campus and I do not like the Republican Governor and I want to get him to change a policy. I might do a rant in a campus newspaper against RepubliCans. It would be protected speech. The stupid Rule enunciated in the article here is: 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.” The President of the university says I can not have a letter to the editor in the campus newspaper or do what the person in this article did. The President says that anti Republicon statements “are intimidating” or “hostile, offensive”.
In a Section 1983 suit for damages I get a jury trial. Who do you think is going to win if I get past summary judgment here– my client or the went in dumb, come out dumb too, university President from Mizzou?
Even Republicans on the jury would vote against the went in dumb, come out dumb too, President of the University of Mizzou.
DBQ:
I said “others”; I did not say “Olly.” Moreover, believing that there are those that believe that our Constitution is revealed Natural Law is a strange kind of bigotry.
I do not believe in god’s Natural Law. For me, the world is made up of protons, neutrons, electrons and morons.
Lee:
While you claim it is not okay for either side to do, your comment clearly stated that the right wing do so more often.
That is incorrect. The merest perusal of threads over the past year would dispel that notion. I assumed you must be skimming not to be aware. There were many times I despaired of contributing, such as after I was called a racist who wanted poor kids to die because I was a fiscal conservative.
Aridog:
I agree. In times past, the department head would not have tolerated a professor grading based on personal ideology. However, nowadays, Liberal idealism is entrenched in universities, including the admin, regents, etc.
Take the example of the pro-life girls being attacked by a professor, who ironically taught feminist studies. Did the university defend the girls and harshly penalize the professor? No. They defended her actions.
If we got integrity back in our education system, then people could learn to speak their own minds, without fear of getting a bad grade if they were not indoctrinated by their professor.
Karen, I do read the blog, that reply is telling, you know I read the blog I have responded to you and others often and, although it seems to usually be ignored, I will say both sides of the aisle (although it does seem to be the right side more often) have engaged in this type of behavior. At least 2 times recebtly that I can think of I have been defended because of something Paul usually or think David has written that is nasty/igbnores what I have written. You need only look at the believe it was afghan thread to see who is usually the nastier. To me it is not appropriate for wither side. This is what we see from the playground on up to the political parties and the congress, even SCOTUS, esp Scalia has said things that were nasty (and you google it I dont have time) towards the “opposing” party (from this ‘objective, impartial judge)0
sry problems with keyboard and on my way out. just had to come online for a sec and got pulled into seeing what had been said.
Lee:
“RRex I googled teacher fail students who did not vote Democratic or for Obama.”
Try GOOGLING any of the following, and you’ll get a long list:
Teachers discriminate against conservative students
Teachers punish Republican students
Liberal teachers indoctrinate students
Liberal politics in the classroom make conservative students feel unwelcome
You can go on from there. But you’ll get hundreds of news stories.
Were you really not aware that the public education system, as well as universities, have become Liberal bastions?
I well remember when I was a student listening to professors rant against conservatives.
“RRex I googled teacher fail students who did not vote Democratic or for Obama.”
Try GOOGLING any of the following, and you’ll get a long list:
Teachers discriminate against conservative students
Teachers punish Republican students
Liberal teachers indoctrinate students
Liberal politics in the classroom make conservative students feel unwelcome
You can go on from there. But you’ll get hundreds of news stories.
Were you really not aware that the public education system, as well as universities, have become Liberal bastions?
I well remember when I was a student listening to professors rant against conservatives.
First one I could find only anecdotal columns and opinion pieces.
the second came up with this:Texas GOP rejects ‘critical thinking’ skills. Really.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas-gop-rejects-critical-thinking-skills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.html
the third indoctrination, again blogs, opinions, and right wing sites.
But In fact:
“But contrary to conservative rhetoric, studies show that going to college does not make students substantially more liberal. The political scientist Mack Mariani and the higher education researcher Gordon Hewitt analyzed changes in student political attitudes between their freshman and senior years at 38 colleges and universities from 1999 to 2003. They found that on average, students shifted somewhat to the left — but that these changes were in line with shifts experienced by most Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 during the same period of time. In addition, they found that students were no more likely to move left at schools with more liberal faculties.
Similarly, the political scientists M. Kent Jennings and Laura Stoker analyzed data from a survey that tracked the political attitudes of about 1,000 high school students through their college years and into middle age. Their research found that the tendency of college graduates to be more liberal reflects to a large extent the fact that more liberal students are more likely to go to college in the first place. ” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/opinion/sunday/college-doesnt-make-you-liberal.html?_r=0
Your examples don’t pan out as more then anecdotes.
I have to add that I am appalled when any professor or student is denied the right to their free speech. Instances where commencement speakers were forced to decline an invitation or shouted down is anathema to free speech and the pointof school which is to learn to think critically, and for yourself.
Karen S said …
It is anathema to me that teachers bring their personal politics with them to the classroom. Theirs is to teach the subject at hand, not indoctrination.
In today’s world I agree with you, because with their opinions, I suspect, comes a prejudice. Note my post at 11:03 above….this prejudice wasn’t prevalent in “the olden days” when I went to school … back in the Jurassic the reason for introducing contrary subject matter was to stimulate, not denigrate. (At least in my experience) As I said, I suspect it was because the leftists in those days were confident enough in their own beliefs to not need to be prejudiced…e.g., demanding acclaim and affirmation to subsidize their own philosophies.
Today…we have a new world where the mind is not supposed to think, but assent. That is sad. I can be called a “rabid right winger” or some such thing if I disagree with Obama, Reid, Pelosi, et al…and say so. A very telling point, to me anyway, is the obsession with Bush 43 (hello…he’s no longer President!)…a President I also criticized…never mind my ideas about his VP…but no one called me a rabid leftist for doing so. I doubt even George W Bush would say that, but Cheney might.
Why do people rush to defend this behavior?
Lee:
“The professor need only read the vitriol, more often from the right, on this blog to see she has a point.”
Do you actually read this blog? I have been told I should leave the planet, that I’m racist, etc, etc, merely because I’m a fiscal conservative.
I agree with Professor Turley that the author had the right to free speech. This should encourage more free speech dissenting, especially from her students.
What she does not have the right to do is bring her personal views into the classroom. And professors in general should be prohibited from grading students harsher who disagree with their views. This happens all the time.
So right from the start Jeff ASSumes what is is the mind of other posters without any actual conversation. ASSuming that Olly believes in the divine basis of the Constitution. Do we know this is the case? It may be or may not. Did Jeff ask? or just go with his preconceived prejudice.
Um. Yep. We agree on this, I think………No agreement is possible with someone who starts with a biased and bigoted premise.
The US should not have a “state political party” taught in schools.
This is very typical in higher education. I had many teachers espouse these same hateful ideologies in college. It is anathema to me that teachers bring their personal politics with them to the classroom. Theirs is to teach the subject at hand, not indoctrination.
Parents do not pay vast sums of money for political indoctrination. They pay for a higher education. But as long as parents continue to send their children to these schools, nothing will ever change.
The Left would take a very different view on things if bashing Liberals was as common in the classroom, from Kindergarten to advanced degrees, as bashing Republicans.
“Perhaps we need to get back to basics. For instance, do we have consensus that the founding principles in the Declaration are timeless? Are they perceived as a vision not yet achieved or simply a snapshot in history? Can we find consensus on the purpose for government?”
Some of us believe that the Constitution was written by Enlightened MEN; others believe it was DIVINELY inspired Natural Law. So, right from the start we cannot agree. Either one puts his ultimate faith in God or faith in Man.
She should be on double-secret probation when it comes to her objectiveness with her students.
Whether the substance of what she wrote is fair or not is beside the point. The issue is the principle of free speech.
If you believe in free speech, then you believe in free speech. Period. Believing in that principle means you have to not only tolerate speech you do not like, but you also have to assume that the receivers of repugnant messages are fully capable of evaluating them on the merits. Sanctioning her for expressing herself is far more chilling to speech, harmful to liberty, and obnoxious than anything expressed in her obnoxious essay.
As someone who has mostly voted Republican (occasionally Libertarian down ballot) I say that Professor Turley gets this one exactly right.
“Can we agree on anything?”
Jeff,
Perhaps we need to get back to basics. For instance, do we have consensus that the founding principles in the Declaration are timeless? Are they perceived as a vision not yet achieved or simply a snapshot in history? Can we find consensus on the purpose for government?
“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” (11:16)
“The only way to comprehend what mathematicians mean by Infinity is to contemplate the extent of human stupidity.” (11:27)
That didn’t take long. I was ready to post a different, far more civil comment to you (and I will) but the plank might obscure your vision at the moment.
“Treating voters as if they are ‘an enlightened and rational people’ might just produce a Republican presidential candidate worthy of the name.”
Good luck with that. Voltaire said it best:
“The only way to comprehend what mathematicians mean by Infinity is to contemplate the extent of human stupidity.”