Boston University has been widely criticized for its response to racially-charged comments of its newest professor, Saida Grundy, an incoming assistant professor of sociology and African-American studies. Various news outlets are reporting that BU alums have threatened to withdraw support from the school over hiring a professor who has denounced “white men as a “problem population” and called “white masculinity . . . THE problem for america’s (sic) colleges.” Grundy has made her Twitter account private and refused to make any comments to the media about her past comments that have been denounced as both racist and sexist.
As discussed in the prior story, Colin Riley, the university spokesman, issued a statement standing by Grundy and, correctly, stating that this is an act of free speech. Many academics, including this one, believe that this is protected speech, but that does not prevent the university from denouncing such comments.
Riley has now issued a statement that “… we are deeply saddened when anyone makes such offensive statements.” The university further stated that it “does not condone racism or bigotry in any form and we are deeply saddened when anyone makes such offensive statements.” It may not do much to quell the anger among alums over the hiring itself or the delayed sense of “regret” expressed in the comments.
Many alums are suggesting that, had this been a white professor calling blacks the problem on campuses, there would have been an order terminating the contract. I hope that BU would adopt a consistent approach in such cases, but in the end the damage is likely to linger. Universities are facing tremendous financial pressures today and BU has long been the poorer relation to its neighbors, Harvard and MIT, in terms of fundraising. This will not help. However, the university is correct in maintaining the right of Brundy to be able to speak freely, particularly given the connection of this speech to her academic research. One can question the hiring decision on its merits in terms of such scholarship, but academics should be allowed to make controversial, even offensive, comments in their public writings.
What do you think?
Welcome to the world of homegrown terrorist teachings. The field is vast and includes not only sociologist, but also religious views, policy makers and even law enforcement tactics.
Then there is the inciters which includes news media, lawyers, and people who put their words in it without knowing what they are really talking about.
All these marchers doing the ‘hands up,’ then march as if that is how it happen and then the video comes out and they claim it was faked by the camera operator.
Dying for a cause, and a promise their family would get money in return for being a martyr and your name lives on, but doing it for an evil idea bring shame to your name and family.
Teachers are responsible for the way a young mind develops, whether it is taken as a fact or used to murder is up to that educator.
Considering that white men hold the power in this country, and that minorities get the short end of the stick in terms of justice (in its many forms) due to the actions of those in power, I agree with the professor.
Throwing in “lefty-progressive” is a red herring. Those in power set up all kinds of things to quiet the squeaky wheel but they still manage to short-change those with little to no power.
bettykath wrote: “Considering that white men hold the power in this country, and that minorities get the short end of the stick in terms of justice (in its many forms) due to the actions of those in power, I agree with the professor.”
That may have been true at one time, but not anymore. White men tend to be discriminated against in modern times. I think if Barack Obama were a white man, he never would have been elected President. What gave him the edge was being a young black man.
Where are the white male leaders in the Baltimore situation? The mayor is a black woman. The attorney general is a black woman. The police commissioner is a black man. Where are any white men in that whole chain of command? Even going up the chain of command, there are no white men. All black leaders. Who is the President? Black Man. Who is the current U.S. Attorney General? Black Woman. Who was the former U.S. Attorney General before her? Black Man.
I agree that this is free speech. I also agree that hiring her was questionable if this sort of racism was pervasive in her work. The university should have a uniform stance on the speech of its employees that is applied equally. I also have concerns about her ability to grade white students impartially, since she is an affirmed racist. The university should monitor this and be prepared to act if her personal beliefs interfere with her ability to do her job, or if her racist comments make her classroom a hostile environment to students.
The best remedy for bad speech is good speech.
I think what many here are overlooking is that the university is not just an employer. Universities have always been bastions of free speech. The whole idea of education is to widen one’s knowledge of different viewpoints.
Just because universities have been turning away from free speech and unequally applying its actions against objectionable speech is no reason to abandon free speech. It is all the more the reason to embrace free speech, but call for free speech for everybody.
When someone with an extreme opinion or belief gets fired from a position, such as one in education or journalism, for expressing their opinion or belief, then the entire community at large is deprived of knowing that perspective
Baloney. It depends on what the position is and how those beliefs affect the job product and how they directly impact the customer. If she is a clerk in a 7-11 store the effect is not as great as being a Professor in a University giving poor grades to people she hates. One bad performance is just annoying and people will avoid the store and go elsewhere., the other bad performance can damage a student’s chances at future success by being saddled with bad grades because HE is a white person.
The employer has the right AND the responsibility to make sure that the employees are able to do their job. If their personal beliefs, which they are certainly entitled to hold and to express, make it so that they are not able to do their job…..in this case teach impartially and equally to all students, then the employer has the right and responsibility to let that employee go somewhere else.
In my business, I had employees who when hired were counseled (warned) that in no cases would I tolerate having my clients subjected to discussions about various topics while in my office or while conducting business with me or when on the phone conducting business. In particular, no politics or religion. Nice chit chat about the weather, kids, sports etc fine. Just don’t get all preachy or political.
I don’t care what you believe or what you do in your off time, but on MY time you don’t irritate my clients, subject them to lectures that make them uncomfortable or drive them away from my business. That is MY prerogative 😀
This woman, the teacher, is in a position of responsibility and with a duty to teach her students equally. A reporter is also in a position of responsibility to report impartially the news. If you want to be an advocate, a racist, a biased teacher or biased reporter, you have no place in those occupations and should find something else to do. Go be BIll O’Reilly or Al Sharpton or something. But you can’t be an impartial, fair teacher or reporter.
Let me bold this, since some people have a hard time with reading comprehension ….When your bias and personal beliefs effect your ability to do your job or execute your duties, you should be fired. Find something else to do.
Oops, meant to address Rick, not Pogo.
Tyger makes good points here. There is a lack of standards that make the discussion difficult to pin.
1 What is freedom of speech?
2- Is it universal or selective?
3- If universal, is there any exceptions (yes, yelling fire in, cussing in public ….)
4- If selective, why? Who decides of it? Is it a legal issue or a social issue? Or a criminal issue?
5- Are schools an extension of society at large do they fall under a specific qualification with specific freedoms and constraints on speech?
Unless any of these items are clarified, freedom of speech is essentially subjective and we are not talking about the same thing.
Pogo, it is not about left or right. I am responding to the selective nature of freedom of speech. As I said before, either we have it or we don’t. I support people’s right to draw Prophet Muhammad, and I support the woman’s right to express herself…just as I support Rush Limbaugh, Ted Cruz and Pogo’s relentless demonizing of the “left”
Po
To advocate for firing someone because they are given a leeway not given to you is the ideological tit for tat that will insure no one has freedom of speech.
And the left’s solution is for no one but them to have free speech. It’s interesting po has exactly never objected to this outcome, and he further protects that outcome by objecting to others imposing the left’s standards on itself.
Free speech means people with politically-correct beliefs can express their opinions that those who are biased and prejudiced and make sexist and racist statements in public should be fired or censured in some way, too. True freedom of speech swings both ways. The real question is who gets to control what happens after that? When someone with an extreme opinion or belief gets fired from a position, such as one in education or journalism, for expressing their opinion or belief, then the entire community at large is deprived of knowing that perspective. That is neither freedom nor justice. What would be more appropriate for the expansion of truth and knowledge is to be sure the opposite extreme opinions, as well as the majority centrist opinions, get to be taught and published equally, or at least proportionately. This would promote knowledge and understanding better than suppression of unpopular or extreme ideas.
” throwing the baby out with the bath water”
Universities are all bathwater, no baby.
Racism is free speech. That’s what the conservatives keep saying. You can say that. Yes. Just don’t expect it to go over well.
Yes. She has the free speech right to say racist things and expose her own bias. This is actually a good thing, because the students and other people will be forewarned and be able to avoid interacting with her.
However, the University has the right to determine that she is not suited to the profession of teaching. Since it is patently obvious that she would not be able to deal fairly with her students, she should not be hired.
She is not entitled to a job and the employer is not obligated to give her one.
Well said, BK.
Pogo, Nick, it is about the bigger picture, freedom of speech beyond the confines of black and white.
Your comments seem to be more about throwing the baby out with the bath water, To advocate for firing someone because they are given a leeway not given to you is the ideological tit for tat that will insure no one has freedom of speech.
Advocating to get the same rights afforded others is one thing, to demand those rights be rescinded until you get them is another thing.
That, I think, frames the issue completely! While the undeserved (minorities and the poor) demand to be given the same access, the structure of white privilege demands others’ access be taken away until they, themselves have it.
And not only does bettykath NOT think this new professor should be fired, bettykath yesterday said that this professor was right in saying that “white masculinity is THE problem for america’s colleges.”
“Ever notice that it’s minorities that are getting killed by cops, not whites?”
Ever notice that it’s minorities that commit more crimes than whites (as % of population)?
“Ever notice that it’s minorities that are being legislated out of voting?”
That’s a lie; prove it.
(SJWs always lie; it’s what they do.)
“Ever notice that it’s minorities that were targeted by the banksters with fraudulent mortgages?”
Ever notice that lefty progressive policies to promote affordable housing (goals led government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to lead the creation of subprime and other risky loans?
(By 2008, before the US financial crisis began, 28 million such loans were outstanding —half of all US mortgages; 74% were on the books of government agencies or government-backed or -regulated entities.
rcocean, “Why should there one rule for blacks and another for whites?”
Exactly. Every notice that it’s minorities that are getting killed by cops, not whites? Ever notice that it’s minorities that are being legislated out of voting? Ever notice that it’s minorities that were targeted by the banksters with fraudulent mortgages? Ever notice…… There have always been, in this country, one set of rules for whites and another for African-Americans, Native Americans and Hispanics.
bettykath wrote: “Every notice that it’s minorities that are getting killed by cops, not whites?”
This is a false narrative presented to you by the media. You have been duped by propaganda. The actual facts are that for every black person killed by cops, 3 whites are killed by them.
http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/the-data-on-cops-killing-blacks-that-the-race-hustlers-dont-want-you-to-see
The odds that a black man will be shot and killed by a police officer is about 1 in 60,000. For a white man those odds are 1 in 200,000.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/21/police-kill-more-whites-than-blacks-but-minority-d/#ixzz3Zwgbymjr
This is certainly the time to fire her. She does not have tenure. 🙂
Sexists, racists, and ageists exist everywhere, right along side extreme politicians of each party and religious fanatics of every belief, often in various combinations. Until all these people are simply accepted by the less outspoken majority and can voice their biased and prejudiced opinions without violence and calls for them to be silenced, censored, fired, jailed, made to retract and apologize for what they have said, or any other form of punishment and prior restraint, Free Speech does not truly exist. Without the views of the extreme opposites of each end, the centrist perspective of the middle is meaningless.
Of course she should be fired. The current rule is Racism = termination. Why should there one rule for blacks and another for whites?
po, What the vast majority of comments are saying is if someone on campus makes a comment about a protected class member they are fired. I and others say this is free speech. Do you see the hypocrisy? I doubt it. Please go to http://www.TheFire.org for volumes of examples.
“Either there is freedom of speech or there isn’t.”
That’s the point, po.
There is no freedom of speech on US university campuses, only a limited freedom for Progs to say Approved Prog things.
So, until freedom returns, fire her.