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
Number of times I have listened to Rush Limbaugh’s radio show….Zero. Heck, I’ve watched Rachel Maddow on MSNBC more than that. Now she’s truly funny.
” I’ve watched Rachel Maddow on MSNBC more than that. Now she’s truly funny.”
Agreed. I especially like it when she wears the big black glasses as a guest.
Both the right and left do love their boogey men. That is caused by half their brains being atrophied.
“My post was in response to Sandi’s, she was the one said dems must not have a sense of humor.”
OK, so maybe I did but in and interrupt – sorry. But it is hard not to when the subject is Rush.
It is my understanding that in the run up to 2016 a tag team of Limbaugh and Rove are taking on all comers in a match at Bohemian Grove.
Thought it was to be more of a one on one cage match between Rush and Rove. I would pay to see that! Just …no spandex please.
🙂
“The Left’s obsession with a radio talking guy. He isn’t running for any office. He isn’t an official spokesman for anybody.”
The last time I heard a republican claim Rush was just an entertainer, Rush practically had the poor guy drummed out of the party.
I think they did every thing but cut his epaulettes off and paint a yellow stripe down his back. And all that just for misunderstanding who really runs the party.
It is my understanding that in the run up to 2016 a tag team of Limbaugh and Rove are taking on all comers in a match at Bohemian Grove.
Now I would love to see that. But it is my understanding you are going to have to be RNC or higher just to get standing room tickets.
@leejcaroll
I am not a democrat so maybe I don’t qualify but I don’t know how anyone could say “And Democrats don’t like it because they have no sense of humor.”
I laugh at Rush Limbaugh all the time. I think he is one of the great comedians of our generation. Where would we be without Rush to lighten our day by giving us a his unique view of world events.
Rush is sort of the ‘I love Lucy’ of today’s talk radio. You know when he starts its going to be a while, its going to be a twisted, its going to be convoluted, its going to be a cockamamie story, and there’s going to be lots of hilarious ‘splainin’ before its over. But just like Lucy, beneath all the illogical twists and turns, you know there is a devious mind at work guiding the listener to a fantastic, crazy, Rube Goldberg, predetermined outcome. How he can be so inventive every day is a mystery to me.
So when I’m feeling down, when I need a lift, when I want a laugh, when I just want to escape the harsh reality of world events – well Rush is my boy. He never fails to please. I can always count on Rush to start with a clever chuckle and by the end take me to a loud, breathless belly laugh.
Here is what I do NOT understand.
The Left’s obsession with a radio talking guy. He isn’t running for any office. He isn’t an official spokesman for anybody. He is just a guy making a LOT of money by being on the radio. A LOT of money. He must have an audience or he wouldn’t. That doesn’t make him an official anything.
Yet. The Left keeps trying to make him some sort of God or official representative of …..something or another…I’m not quite sure what you think he is representing.
Every time you guys quote Rush as an authority or try to bring his statements out as some sort of an “AHA” moment, you loose all credibility in my mind. Same thing for Fox News. The minute you do this….the rest of your post is blah blah blah blah….using the Peanut’s cartoon grown up voice….wa wah wa wa wah.
Maybe all of YOU walk in lock step and think the same thoughts (we know you all mouth the same words), but perhaps you might be able to wrap your minds around this concept. Not all Conservatives actually listen to Rush or watch Fox. And possibly even those who might catch a bit of one or the other at some time or another, do so with a skeptical and open mind.
My post was in response to Sandi’s, she was the one said dems must not have a sense of humor. (and that the speech wwas not hate speech, I feel when someone makes statements such as that the reality must be presented so all can see exactly what the person said, wrote, and decide if they feel it is hate speech or not, or “funny” or not,
Sandi How is this merely humor and a sign dems dont’ understand hunor” What we understand is hate speech which the right seems to think is fine and dandy (and I guess funny too)
http://samuel-warde.com/2013/08/33-of-rush-limbaughs-most-racist-sexist-lgbt-hate-rants-what-you-can-do-video/
(The click provides the source link for every quote)
33 (of a thousand) Reasons Why Americans Are Winning The Rush Limbaugh Boycott
1.He called children on assisted lunches “wanton little waifs and serfs.” Source
2.He called Sandra Fluke a “slut” and “prostitute” when she advocated for birth control. Source
3.He called undocumented immigrants “invasive species,” “mollusks,” and “spermatozoa.” Source
4.He compared gay marriage to pedophilia. Source
5.He denies guns play any role in domestic violence fatalities. Source
6.He joked about “pressure cookers” a day after Boston Bombs. Source
7.He linked lesbians with obesity and alcoholism. Source
8.He mocked the Chinese president and the Chinese language, inciting racial threats. Source
9.He mocked the cries of children afraid to die, as did those in the Sandy Hook massacre. Source
10.He mocked and accused Michael J. Fox of faking his Parkinson Disease. Source
11.He never served, yet called soldiers who supported Iraqi withdrawal “phony soldiers.” Source
12.He promoted the myth that abortions cause cancer. Source
13.He asked who was black lawmaker, Sheila Jackson Lee’s slave owner? Source
14.He referred to a transgender as “Add-A-Dick-To-Me-Babe.” Source
15.He referred to U.S. guards torturing Iraqis as “having a good time.” Source
16.He said AIDS was caused by promiscuity and would not spread to heterosexuals. Source
17.He said all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson. Source Source
18.He said an abortion could be stopped if it occurred with a gun. Source
19.He said deep down women actually hope for sexual harassment. Source
20.He said feminism was created to allow ugly women a place in society. Source
21.He said he hoped President Obama would fail in his presidency. Source
22.He said illegal drug users should be ‘sent up.’. He never served time for his drug arrest. Source
23.He said Mexican undocumented immigrants are unwilling to work. Source
24.He said Obama’s “regime” is “tribalizing” America. (Racism meets Nazism.) Source
25.He inferred pro-choice advocates want abortions to happen. Source
26.He said same-sex marriage could lead to sex with a child. Source
27.He said said he learned about women from his cat (gag alert). Source
28.He said, “We need to call Guantanamo a Muslim resort.” (Sociopath) Source
29.He sang “Barack The Magic Negro” to “Puff The Magic Dragon.” (very racist audio) Source
30.He showed photos comparing Chelsea Clinton to a dog when she was 13-years-old. Source
31.He suggested Hilary Clinton had Vince Foster murdered. Source
32.He told Sandra Fluke he wanted her to videotape/post her sex online so he could watch. Source
33.He told a black female to take the bone out of her nose and call him back. Source
(I can provide mre but no point. Either you “understand” hate speech or you don’t. Either you think hate speech is funny and acceptable or you don’t. (Not that he can’t say it. I am for the first amendment but when you listen or read what others write it is necessary to have a comprehension of the words. and sentiments)
“
DBQ, great point.
Political opinion has a place in one’s private life but is outright coercion when espoused by a professor in a communications course.
On the other hand. Perhaps it is a good thing that her hateful opinions and hateful attitude has been exposed. If she kept it all hidden under a slimy rock, those right leaning students who in good faith expressed opinions would be surprised by the poor grades they were getting without understanding the reason why……… that she really just HATES them.
Now student have the ability to make fully informed decisions on whether to take her class or not.
@zedalis ” Republicans have no, espouse no, and have passed no legislation to even touch the problems that health care poses in our country.”
Now you know that is not true. The republican Heritage foundation think thank developed the key features of ACA in the ’90’s and republicans including Romney passed a plan with those basic characteristics in Massachusetts in the early 2000’s.
The republicans would have a great plan – well a plan just like ACA – if only they had moved a little faster on the national scene.
The biggest problems I see is what republicans would have called it Bachmanncare? Palincare? Randcare? Ryancare? Rovecare?
You know naming and presentation is so important in politics these days.
It really is just not fair to give Obama all the credit when republicans did so much to make ACA what it is today.
I too returned to college from 2002-2005 for my second career. And yes, the far left and Apple computers have indeed taken over the education industry.
Her deeply flawed argument based on vague ‘research’ studies and a lot of her own interjected personal opinion are just another example of statistics being anything one uses to support one’s own (right or wrong) position. I don’t think she should lose her job over this article, because it is a free country. But she would be alienating a considerable audience within her lecture hall who would be afraid of scholastic retaliation should they disagree with her position. Unless she teaches a mandatory course, she will probably see at least a 50% reduction in her lecture enrollment if students become aware of her political bias. This will affect the university’s financial bottom line negatively. Political opinion has a place in one’s private life but is outright coercion when espoused by a professor in a communications course.
Aridog, the sigh was meant as self-deprecating, part of an admission that I had been mistaken by not reading your posts more thoroughly and mischaracterizing your views with no grounds. Not at all an offensive remark signifying boredom, it was meant to convey annoyance with myself. Sorry for any offence taken.
You’re wasting your time, Aridog. zedalis suffers from either a faulty memory or a selective one, b/c he can’t seem to recall the 2008 election.
That’s the election in which McCain ran on an explicit and prominently featured set of health-insurance reform proposals that Obama demagogued. (To paraphrase, “Unlike Senator McCain, I will never tax your insurance plan.”) Gruber’s famous video explained how this was a conscious lie.
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2014/11/13/remembering-obamas-biggest-broken-health-care-promise/
zedalis is not only uninformed, but profoundly anti-democratic as well. He’s an admirer of the rant by ben lebovits, which argued (apparently seriously) that any member of Congress who opposed the ACA “is not fit to be a leader in a democratic-just society.” The fact that the ACA is overwhelmingly unpopular with ordinary Americans is apparently not supposed to have been reflected in the votes of their elected representatives, according to these commenters. Instead, representative democracy is only to be evaluated in terms of how well it produces laws that satisfy ben lebovits.
But I’ll say this–those sorts of comments add a bit of zest to a thread about hating Republicans.
Profoundly un-democratic!?! LOL. this is priceless, Chip. Your A+B=D,E and F approach to logic is probably understandable if have spent much time in the regressive echo chamber that Turleys blog has become.
Please explain what led you to believe I am an admirer of ben liebovits. I only responded to your rudeness re. his comment because it seems no one else here would challenge your pomposity. I am not interested in your refutation of statements I did not make, nor am I interested in your specious comparisons of America with North Korea.
Fact – Republicans have no, espouse no, and have passed no legislation to even touch the problems that health care poses in our country. McCains proposal was weak, another example of the sole school of Republicon economic thought – “Let’s just give everyone big tax breaks”. His proposal to allow states, with the help of the federal government, address the problem of low-no-income uninsured was roundly and repeatedly attacked by the right when it was included in the ACA, resulting in a hodgepodge of states refusing to expand medicare to help the indigent. Just think of the multi-millions of dollars Republicons have both accepted and spent to discredit the only attempt to reform a corrupt and unfair health insurance industry in generations. How proud they must be. But, throwing money into telling people what is not good for them IS good for them seems to be the modus operandi of all the “corporate people”, that class of citizen newly created by an activist and addled high court, a class that has no responsibilities, just privileges.
People may very well be proud of Republicons no-achievement achievements in health care, but the American people obviously were not buying illusory progress from regressives in 2008 and 2012. And, I believe, neither will they be in 2016. While making the mantra of the republicon party “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain” may have worked for years in a much different America, members of the coming demographic tsunami have already seen the wizard and they did not like what they saw.
I quit reading at “Rush Limbaugh’s hate speech.” This comment comes from people who have never listened to Rush, but pick up on his supposed hate speech from some bigoted journalist. I’ve listened to Rush for 25 years, if not more. I have never heard him say anything hateful about anybody! They don’t like his success, just as the men she identified; purely ideological. There are Democrats who I think are weasels, liars, thieves, etc. I don’t listen to shows that call them wonderful people. Does she really think millions of people listen to Rush looking for hate speech, three hours a day?
Wrong. We who listen to Rush do so for information you don’t get anywhere else and for the laughter! Rush uses humor to express himself. And Democrats don’t like it because they have no sense of humor. They truly don’t. Not just in DC, but all over. Tell a good political joke at a party and Democrats can’t laugh because they don’t understand humor. Of course, they haven’t much to laugh about these days.
Zedalis…cute that you include “sigh” for reading what I’ve said. I read your stuff and don’t feel a need to “sigh.” Discourse doesn’t require one to sigh as if bored to tears. Be bored if you chose, but try to not make it a point of discussion.
Zedalis … thaks for the small favor of acknowledgement…never-the-less, both Republicans and Democrats “attempted” to make a reform (whether they “ran” on the subject is immaterial, what they did or proposed is what counts…using an existing successful plan, that meets the prior-condition criteria you cited….and has a successful 50+ year track record. Why is that so hard to digest and admit? The ACA was formulated, badly, just because a closeted few could. Don’t take a cruise on any ship whose captain does things because he can…an analogy, albeit a poor one.
PS: I’ve cited the alternative proposed by Kerry, Issa, et al so often here that I refuse to cite it specifically again. Responses were crickets. I really believe most folks don’t believe it is true…yet I’ve been under said plan for a couple decades without a single hitch and minimal cost and nearly zero deductibles, even as a supplement, under Medicare these days….but not previously. Transition was essentially seamless. Without it I’d be long dead from cancer.
So, yes, color me grateful. I’d hope that many others could utilize such a plan…and they could with minimal adaptations, mirroring the ACA but at far far less cost.
Aridog – I realize, after rereading (sigh) your comment that you included Kerry’s 2004 proposal. I retract my laughter, but restate my contention that the ACA was the first time in over a generation that Washington attempted to fix healthcare insurance. And also that there never was, pre ACA, a Republican ( with whom I stipulate your involvement remains beyond my knowledge) that ever ran on anything approaching reform. I know you did not say that there was. And there wasn’t.
Seasons Greetings.
Please, the examples given of the Republican approach to needed insurance reforms are laughable. Name one Republican candidate that ever ran on any of them.
Happy Holidays.
Zedalis…nice dodge. No, of course you are not “required” to have read anything else I’ve written. Even on this thread when you implied the PPACA was the only alternative for a health care reform vis a vis no denials for pre-existing conditions….and were wrong about that. Was that part of my inanity? However, when you refer to the guy cutting brush, when I never said word one about him on this thread, then I know you’re projecting….and I correctly presume you do not know what I think…just what you think. Have nice evening.