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
Gosh, Chip, I gleaned quite a bit from ben’s post. Which parts gave you trouble?
ben lebovits, I’m impressed by one and only one thing about you–your ability to write so many words while saying so little.
Aridog > You obviously have not read much of anything I’ve posted over the past several months.
Gee, I wasn’t aware I was required to delve into your posting history before commenting on the inanity of your remarks regarding President Obamas vacation and the fact that you feel cmfortable referring to him as a doofus.
I’m sure that your comments, when taken en toto, would reveal a much sharper intelligence and a more nuanced approach to political discourse than you have shown here in this thread. But I frankly have neither the time nor the inclination to know any more about you. If that dfisqualifies me from participating in these conversations, just let me know.
zedalis … do you always project your bias? Do you always presume you know what another commenter thinks when they haven’t said anything about it on the thread you’re on? Do think that perhaps others might have criticized Bush 43…but we don’t have a hang up over it. You obviously have not read much of anything I’ve posted over the past several months.
Now go ahead, next assert I adore Dick Cheney. Really, do it…you know you want to do it. Let those BDS juices flow!
1.I hate ISIS, the Taliban, the PLO,etc groups and no one can convince me that my hatred is not legitimate.When it comes to the gop,I prefer to word it: Vote for a republican? NEVER. MY logic is simple.Take people like the 3 northeastern gop alleged moderates(sic!), how many filibuster votes did they support? What damage did they help inflict upon how many people by their votes? What hypocrisy did they support when voting against bills the likes of which the gop had voted for under Bush? By supporting their leadership, by lending their prestige and good name to the antics of the gop they made themselves also responsible for all the destructive and nonsensical actions–the hundreds of filibusters, the scores of votes to destroy obamacare, etc— there is no such creature as a moral leader whose words and actions are universes apart.
2.So–its not just a matter of free speech–its also a matter of ” there is no such thing as an innocent bystander”:that is, one who merely indirectly helps cause people to die, remain sick or hungry or homeless,etc –one who simply looks the other way and or points at himself or herself and says but I’m not like these others who are cruel ,inhuman brutes! —that kind of person can not hide behind a wall of verbal legerdemain that conveys compassion, sympathy ,and just actions!And that kind of a person is not fit to be a leader in a democratic-just society!
The article itself is so empty and pathetic that to suggest that it amounts to anything, let alone hate speech, is to give the writer far too much credit. It isn’t hate speech; it is just crap.
Aridog >”so long as he leaves his pen and phone in the bathroom:”
Because cutting brush for six weeks while ignoring urgent memo’s detailing imminent terrorists attacks was so Presidential!
It’s a funny thing. Educate people and they become liberals. Odd what education does for people.
I’m sorry I used the term “doofus” for our President. He’s on vacation in Hawaii after all…so long as he leaves his pen and phone in the bathroom, we’re okay.
Karen S … I am of the opinion that today’s “liberals” are not very certain of their beliefs, and therefore seek affirmation through their constituents, or students I suppose. Yep, I imagine today that few of the hard political types leave their politics at the door. It is really a step backward…even for them. It’s one reflection that reminds me of just how old I am 🙁
I have to confess I’m kind of stunned that, even doofus as he and his group is, Obama would give Sharpton the time of day, let alone meet with him regularly. Is he too blind to not see the caricature it makes all of them?
Oh, wait….
Lee:
I just did a similar GOOGLE search and got 447,000 hits.
If you believe that Liberal professors leave their politics at the door, then you are ignoring the facts at your disposal.
Aridog:
“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?”
I spoke about this happening quite frequently, although it has not been stated whether the professor engaged in this behavior.
In general, Universities need to penalize professors who do alter grades based on politics. Although tenure makes that quite difficult.
Aridog:
“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.”
I wish critical thinking and debate were taught at universities. Now, we get “group think” classes.
There is a good documentary on HBO about James Brown w/ some classic footage of formerly fat Al. As you may know, Al was part of Brown’s entourage. One is when he was a very fat 19 year old preacher. James Brown was a Republican and supported Nixon. Al and others try and explain that away. But, it is clear in Brown’s words. He was “The hardest working man in showbiz” and that was his message. Get and education, work hard, start your own businesses and take care of yourselves, not looking for help from the white man. Failure is not an option, Also the message of Malcolm X Jackie Robinson. The antithesis of the Grievance Philosophy preached by hucksters like Sharpton now. What do you think Brown, Malcolm, Jackie would say about this loathsome whine and excuse for failure of, “white privilege?”
Nick…an apt term, no doubt. However, ever so slowly, but certainly, sanity is returning…the 85+% black population just elected a mayor with some actual executive experience…and a whitey to boot. Guys like Rev Al underestimate the intelligence of minority populations…e.g., they do figure out that solely identity politics candidates are excrement. My daughter now lives in the city core (Woodward & Grand River) and loves it…plans to buy there when the rentals become condos. She can walk to work, in a relatively non-hostile environment, to her job in the finance sector. Never has to drive but on weekends…hard to beat that. Except on weekends when there is a baseball or football game or a parade or both 🙁
Ari, They need to rename Detroit, Thunderdome.
The point I make about our current Repub governor is that he is handing the Dem’s the perfect argument against his budget balancing cuts previously. Thus bad old bad old once again. The guy’s an accountant and should know better…cutting to balance a budget, & reducing some taxes, and then raising taxes elsewhere is silly. It’s not like Michigan hasn’t some more waste to eliminate first. Lord almighty, how did we survive for so long, as an industrial power no less, without income taxes, or the closeted VAT (now gone), brought to us by a Republican? Democrats of course cheered…except those like me, who was at that time a registered (vote splitting) Democrat. My demise as a Dem was in 2004…when I felt they had gone totally off the rails. From what I see today, they’ve stayed there.
Gigi De La Paz said …
I don’t hate either side
Me either, but I distrust them both. I have to evaluate them on what they do, not what they say or promise.
Vis a vis “Paul’s” comment about differences between Repubs and Dems…I’m from Michigan, and there really is barely any difference. We get the odd outliers like Detroit’s former Dem Mayor (now serving a long federal sentence laid on him by a jury of his peers here in federal court) and Repub Governor Milliken a while ago who made all Dem tax hikers look like amateurs.
Never-the-less, today our current Repub governor, who has balanced the budget, is now proposing a referendum to raise taxes to the tune of $1.8 Billion for road and highway repairs…he’s making the Bush41 mistake. I’ll be voting “no”…I trust MDOT (an empire unto its own) about as far as I can toss a big SUV left handed. Have dealt with them before…ugh.