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
LeeJ, no loss.
It won’t happen again! You might like FFS. The folks who you enjoyed are there now. It is the one sided website you love.
BarkinDog here. itchinBayDog is on my Dogalogue Machine and when the dogs away the cats will play. I am gonna put a lock on it here and now.
itchinBayDog here. BarkinDog was criticizing Missouri above in his comment. This roach is from Michigan not Missouri. Missouri is not Mizzou. The “went in dumb, come out dumb too” accusation about Missouri is mean. Michigan is way up north. It was on the wrong side in the Civil War. They can not make cars up there anymore. They have a city called De Troit which went to Hell in a handbasket. Republicons should be offended by this lady up there in Michigan and should buy cars made in Japan. People like this lady need to be censored. People who work for colleges need to toe the line and keep quiet. I do not see a righty/lefty situation here. Most right handed people up there are just as dumb as left handed people. Four legs good, two legs baaaad!
The kkk also had the ACLU “seal of approval” when they wanted to march in Skokie, not making an analogy of FIRE to KKK but the point is the same, the ACLU fights for all regardless of which side (I know they lost a lot of members for the Skokie case, not me)
I don’t know that it is incontrovertible. I know that is what is said here.
Nick, I didn’t think one way or the other whether you would send me, or others here, to a ‘dreaded right wing site” The way your post read it appeared that it would be a slanted site.
I figure you would send me to a site that supported what you had written, just as my clicks will usually support what I have written. I am sorry to have gotten yoru nose out of joint,
Sourcewatch is a left wing hatchet site. I gave you A GOOD site. Your mind is closed. Enjoy your life.
leej, We’re done.
leej, Please realize, the horrible free speech record on campus is incontrovertible. So, w/ all the bad news it is going to feel to you like it’s right wing. But, it has the ACLU seal of approval. I know you well enough that I would not tell you to go to a dreaded right wing website. I thought you knew me well enough. I reckon not.
On college campuses it is not a 2 way street. It’s mostly left. People like this woman have no room for anyone’s views who do not agree with her. Professor Turley, you voted for President Obama. I consider myself a Tea Party Libertarian. I still think you are a great guy. Keep up the good work.
Great points, ChipS.
I was struck by this line from the Prof. Douglas’s column: the ceaseless denigration of President Obama (“socialist,” “Muslim”).”
Why would a writer for In These Times consider the epithet “socialist” to be derogatory? According to the wiki entry for this journal, “[In These Times] was established as a broadsheet-format fortnightly newspaper in 1976 by James Weinstein, a lifelong socialist, with the aid of intellectuals including Julian Bond, Noam Chomsky and Herbert Marcuse.”
I’ve seen this strange tactic before, even in the comments sections of this very blog. Calling someone who espouses socialist policies a “socialist” is held up in arguments like the one in this thread as the quintessence of right-wing animosity.
Clearly, what bothers Douglas is that people dare to criticize Obama at all.
But I think she should be more careful about her phraseology. In the next round of progressive thought purification, people who say “denigrate” or its variants may find themselves denounced by a peoples’ tribunal.
well she’s certainly not a math professor because she can’t add the amount of debt the Democrat liberals have spent raising the national debt from 9 to 18 trillion dollars
The professor’s article is quite disingenuous.
Also the definition of Liberal has different meanings within the US than
Canada or Anglophone Europe.
RC is exactly right. The era of tax payers subsidizing these idiots should be over. The ease of obtaining college money for uncorrectable student loans should end and the higher educational bubble needs to burst.
leej, In the past 2 days I have mentioned 3 TIMES http://www.thefire.org as a great venue for information of assaults on free speech. Don’t worry, it’s not right wing!! It’s not left wing. It is approved by the ACLU, as a good blog to follow the absolute assault on free speech. You get 20 points deducted for poor reading comprehension. I have mentioned http://www.thefire.org at least 30 times.
Nick, I didn’t check it out because when you referenced it, at least today, it came on the heels of a sentence to the effect of the right is the one who is being censored, here’s the proof and came across as you giving us a right wing cite. If I am wrong on that, sorry, you know my eye situation so I do read usually more a scan then every comment that is posted. I did not recall seeing it before but I will check it out.
checked it out. I see they think the ACLU is a good thing . The ACLU joins them but that doesnot mean they are equal opportunity, left, right, The ACLU will defend anytime it thinks there is a constitutional issue, esp free speech.
This is what I found from sourcewatch:
FIRE is a major proponent of the intellectual diversity movement which aims to dismantle the so-called liberal bias in higher academia.
and intellectual diversity defined as this by them:
The major advocate of intellectual diversity has been David Horowitz, president of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture and author of the Academic Bill of Rights. The “[bipartisan” bill states that “The central purposes of a University are the pursuit of truth, the discovery of new knowledge through scholarship and research, the study and reasoned criticism of intellectual and cultural traditions, the teaching and general development of students to help them become creative individuals and productive citizens of a pluralistic democracy, and the transmission of knowledge and learning to a society at large.” [2] Horowitz authored the bill under Students for Academic Freedom, the conservative “student” organization he founded in 2003.
The intellectual diversity movement comes from overwhelming (yet unsurprising to anyone familiar with the world of academia) statistics that college faculty are disproportionately liberal. The fear is that conservatism is not being addressed and that students with conservative viewpoints are marginalized or even punished in the classroom, even when politics is not the part of the course curriculum.
The media coverage of intellectual diversity seemingly parallels the argument against that other paradigm of “liberal bias,” the media itself. Both issues, trumpeted by the right, leave very little room for debate from the left as any evidence of a liberal argument synergistically “proves” the “unfair” slant. Intellectual diversity has been touted by many conservative front groups.
Ironically the last sentence is what we have seen here way too often.
I do not see that this site is not leaning to the right. (And my comprehension of the site and the words is just fine)
I am all for free speech, right left, center so am glad for any group that fights for the rights of all and the cessation of censorship
“If such views are now subject to academic discipline as matters of hate speech, there will be little left of free speech on campuses.”
Too late, Professor. A lot of speech from the right has not been tolerated by the allegedly tolerant left and therefore free speech has been under assault on campuses for quite some time now.
The only difference in this case is that apparently the “progressives” are not enjoying being hoisted by their own petard.
Well, let me say this to Professor Kellogg. The feeling is mutual!!
Jeff,
I did not mention the constitution; I was talking about the Declaration of Independence. The authority for the former is derived from the latter and that’s the only reasonable place to begin. Some people also believe it was written by enlightened men that believed in natural law theory. It is of less importance of what guided their pen to parchment than what they actually wrote. And to assuage the sensibilities of non-believers; I can concede that some very well read men wrote the DoI. So does it have relevance to today?
The colleges cannot be reformed. They are now nothing more than political indoctrination centers and Rape camps. I’d suggest cutting out one year of the four year degree requirement and getting rid of the most of the liberal arts classes and replacing them with a foreign language requirement and classes in logical thinking. If you’re not going to teach the elements of Western Civilization, teach something useful. I wish I could have taken 2 years of Spanish or Chinese instead of wasting time on required Liberal arts classes.
Professor Turley end his post by saying …
… the solution to bad speech is good speech.
I certainly agree. However, I’d add that being unnecessarily provocative, from a position of some power, is not my idea of good or bad speech…it is just stupid speech. That and I find even the idea of the necessity to “hate back” or whatever to be silly. In my mind it is someone looking for affirmation rather than supporting their own convictions affirmatively. One of the classes I cited taught by communists was seminar style…where you were expected to stand up and affirmatively define and defend your position, face to face with others in the room. A “just because” defense didn’t cut it. That experience taught me to be able to change my mind on occasion, and to listen with better attentiveness as well.
Aside: has it been shown that Professor Douglas has actually penalized students for disagreeing with her? I get how it might be construed, but is it fact? Foolishness from a bully pulpit doesn’t prove malfeasance. I’d be interested to know the truth of that contention.