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
~This woman has her right to her opinion–it’s called free speech. However, as a college professor, and a communications instructor at that, I would think she
would have used a more diplomatic way of making her point. Even Obama searches for the right words in respect of his position.
~leejaycarroll–isn’t it amazing how we never see our faults, but only those on the other side. Time for us all to do some self-analysis.
~Jeff Silberman–I agree, make you point as diplomatically as possible.
~Otb–I agree, “she has undermined her own credibility and effectiveness in a very public manner and that should concern the University.”
~Spinelli–I returned to school in my 50’s for a teaching credential. I found the same leftist prejudice, but I continued to speak my mind. I cringed to see the young minds being infiltrated with leftist dogma. They were not incouraged to think for themselves. Maybe everyone should wait to go to college until they have developed their own opinions and not those of their instructors.
~real liberal–sometimes, it’s better to narrow your scope then broaden it. When you get too broad a spectrum, you lose perspective.
~issac–I don’t hate either side. I know that both have valid views, that’s why we have more than one party to keep us from a dictatorial system. Hate is a strong and loathing word to me. Anyone who hates cannot search or accept truth. People who hate are dangerous to society.
~leecarroll–interesting points. I was once a liberal, but as the liberals went too left, I found myself moving more center and then right. I think working with with students, the public, and being in business, opened my eyes to a lot that I didn’t see as a liberal idealist.
Zedalis said …
Because as anyone who has finally gotten health insurance that covers a pre-existing condition should know by now, the Republicans are the ones to thank for their tireless crusade to extend health care to those most in need.
Are you familiar with the FY 2013 HR 3319 by Daryl Issa….or John Kerry’s proposal in 2004, among several others from both sides of the aisle?
You write on this topic like one who just can’t fathom that anyone else could manage it or that there actually is a working system now that could be expanded in who it covers…which just happens to cover no denial of prior conditions and is in effect portable. There were, and still are, alternatives that could accomplish the same things with far less fal de ral….and NO re-assignment to an agency with no experience in regulating and deployment of same versus one already extant, experienced, with infrastructure already in place, and successfully running a program for 50+ years.
Thank you…I’ll not bother you again with this subject.
Maureen McCarthy > “I appreciated the fact that he never got us into any wars.”
wow. just astonishing.
Paul > “Anybody that things their is an ounce of difference between a Repo and a Demo is deluding themselves.?
Because as anyone who has finally gotten health insurance that covers a pre-existing condition should know by now, the Republicans are the ones to thank for their tireless crudade to extend health care to those most in need..
And of course, as soon as the activist buffoons on the highest court in the land neutered the Voting Rights Act, the Democrats were the ones that had voter disenfranchisement bills just WAITING to be passed.
And also remember, it was, of course, the Democrats who took a dying and brain dead womans husband to court to force their addled conception of morality upon him and his wife in their attempt to tell him how to care for his spouse, causing untold pain to the husband, the patient and the nation while they jockeyed for position in the furtherance of their “moral” credentials.
No difference at all.
She wants to criminalize those who disagree with her.
She’s got that in common with the Muslims.
What is FFS?
Aridog – Good Advice
Nick Spinelli – Thank-you
Ms. McCarthy, Thank you for being forthright. It is always heartwarming to have a discussion w/ someone who is intellectually honest. It is becoming more and more rare. Comment more often, we need more folks like you.
Maureen … I have voted for two “peace candidates” in my lifetime, one a Democrat and the other a Republican. Both manged to involve us deeper in to war rather than end them. Lesson learned: never believe what a politician says, judge them only by what they actually do.
Nick Spinelli
I think you are right. I may not have cared back then because we used to refer to him as Ronald ReaGUNS. I began to look at him in a different light when I got older and my political views moved closer to the center. I appreciated the fact that he never got us into any wars.
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.
I think it fits int the “too bad” column.
I agree on non-censorship of books. However, I might think some was due Professor Douglas, based upon what Jane L said at 10:44 AM.
That said, she’s a non-STEM professor at U of M…so not unexpected either. Oddly I enjoyed the liberal arts courses I took as electives during my engineering and business course regimen. I doubt I would today if I couldn’t say what I thought, as I described earlier.
And…that said: I asked earlier if there is any evidence that Professor Douglas actually has penalized students who do not agree with her? Is there?
Finally…let her yap …. fools are known by their own words. No photo ID necessary.
Ms. McCarthy, Indeed it was censorship and you are absolutely correct, it should NEVER happen. But, I get the sense you would not have been concerned if let’s say the books were about Ronald Reagan, then governor of California. Oh..you’ll deny it. And, I can’t prove it. But that’s where I would put my money if a polygraph were available. And, I can swear under oath I would want NO BOOK or ANY TOPIC censored. I am a libertarian to my core.
I think that if we start disciplining professors for what they say or write we are no better than North Korea.
I’m not a fan of “civility rules” on campuses, but I don’t think they quite put the US in NK’s league.
Nick Spinelli
It’s still censorship, pal. It is not supposed to happen.
Chip S said …
… people who say “denigrate” or its variants may find themselves denounced …
Whoops! Guess I am in trouble for that one. Used it at least twice here. 🙁
Absolutely, Mao was the greatest purveyor of genocide in modern history. He made Hitler look like Gandhi. His lice infested body made harlots brought to him vomit. Great man! You waz robbed.
I think that if we start disciplining professors for what they say or write we are no better than North Korea. We take pride in this country because we do have freedom of speech. To stifle free speech in academia is scary. I don’t agree with Professor Douglas and her choice of words was unfortunate, but she has a right to say them.
I don’t agree that college students are being “indoctrinated” by professors. If you want to indoctrinate a kid you start in grammar school. By the time kids gets to college their opinions are formed. Mine were. I went to college in the seventies and I considered myself a liberal. However the professors I had were a lot further to the left than I was. I listened to their opinions with an open mind and participated in discussions. And left the courses with the same opinions I walked in with.
If we start censoring professors – are the books next? Will we be banning and burning books? Our professor for Political Theory ordered the Works of Mao-tse-Tung for us to read as part of the course. The books never came in to the bookstore and he was furious because someone in the administration cancelled them. It gave me an uneasy feeling and I was disappointed and angry because that was part of the course and should not have been censored.
stalker