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?
There is a built-in hypocrisy to be found in freedom of speech as understood by some here. They understand it to mean “the freedom to say whatever I want about others while going after them for saying anything about me.”
Nick
At least Pogo is honest, you are not. While he is gladly an extremist, in the same breath you make a claim while undermining it.
You cannot be a freedom of speech absolutist while saying this “pogo, You have a reasoned position. I am not opposed to her getting fired. I am simply not calling for it. I’m looking for ways to end the PC and allowing someone on campus to rip this prima donna a new one w/o there being censorship.
I understand though, you’d rather roll and show your belly to Pogo and destroy whatever is left of your integrity than risk crossing him.
Oh, i was a Donkey Oaty fan meself.
I mean, show me how it’s done, po.
Maybe I’ll be inspired…
…to let bettykath lay her</i. life down to protect her right to make a fool out of herself.
I have more suggestions for subsequent choices.
pogo, I loved Don Quixote.
Po, I am willing to allow you to lay your life down to protect her right to make a fool out of herself,
po, We and pogo get your divisive game. I don’t play silly games and I don’t dance, dude. Create your drama w/ someone else. Nick don’t dance.
“I’m willing to let this woman keep her position if it opens her up to the ridicule she deserves. I”
But it’ll never happen.
Any attacks will be called ‘racist’ per se.
…reasoning with Pogo to see the light”
There is no light on the left, only darkness.
There you go, Nick, proving my point. What type of freedom of speech is this when you say that you are not opposed to her being fired? Rather than being willing to lay your life down to protect her right to make a fool out of herself, you support those who attack her for expressing such right?
Rather than reasoning with Pogo to see the light, you call his position reasoned?
pogo, You have a reasoned position. I am not opposed to her getting fired. I am simply not calling for it. I’m looking for ways to end the PC and allowing someone on campus to rip this prima donna a new one w/o there being censorship. I would love to have some students parody her like an Onion piece. I’m willing to let this woman keep her position if it opens her up to the ridicule she deserves. It’s quixotic. Both our positions are quixotic, don’t you think?
Nick
If you a free speech absolutist, perhaps it would better help clarify your stance if you were to distance yourself from Pogo’s calling for the woman’s firing.
You seem to agree with him,, hence my lumping you with him.
Nick, because it’s true that “this woman can voice her views, no matter how hateful they are, but no one could say the same about her, or someone gay or any protected class” I recognize that “free speech” is dead on campuses i the US.
Therefore, she should be fired.
And more firings should occur with more and more agitation by non-lefties until we can agree on “free speech” as a true operating principle again.
This one-way street stuff is intolerable.
Taking the high road while they fire and marginalize non-leftists is not working.
I say ‘no more.’
In fact, I side with Chalres Murray who argues we do a Cloward-Piven and sue and sue and sue until they choke on it.
Pogo wrote: “I recognize that “free speech” is dead on campuses i the US. Therefore, she should be fired.”
This is not at all reasonable. Your reasoning: Free speech is dead; therefore, forget free speech and fire the girl?
I think on the contrary. Let’s resurrect the free speech principles using a person like this whose speech the administration is biased to like.
There is one reasonable reason I consider for why she perhaps should be fired. That is the fact that white men in her class will think that she grades their papers with prejudice against them. For all students to be comfortable taking her class, she needs to be more professional and objective in her speech.
Nevertheless, I do not think even this point is sufficient to fire her. I think counter speech alone is sufficient to correct these abuses.
“Throwing in “lefty-progressive” is a red herring. ”
No, it’s the entire problem.
Your unwillingness or inability to see that is not my concern.
Geez, you’d think every good socialist was aware of Marx’s claims of ‘false consciousness.’
…unless by ‘red’ herring you meant it was a commie fish.
=)
po, I do not advocate firing this woman. She should not have been hired. But, there she is. If you bother to read what I said as opposed to what pogo said[all us white commenters must look alike] I despise the PC in this country and particularly on campuses. The fact is this woman can voice her views, no matter how hateful they are, but no one could say the same about her, or someone gay or any protected class. For chrissake po, we have been conversing for some time now. I AM A FREE SPEECH ABSOLUTIST.
I listened to the rambling, bumbling, tortured speech of the Dane County DA regarding the Tony Robinson, Jr. shooting in my hometown of Madison. I just said to my wife, it is a sure sign of equality that a black, inarticulate, bumbling, mumbling attorney can climb the ladder as DA just like all the inarticulate, bumbling, mumbling, white attorneys have for generations prior to him.
*Has been met
David, really? Will you take the fact that one tiny minority of Black Americans occupy positions of leadership in our society to counter BK’s point? Those exceptions only confirm that rule.
What, were Obama and Eric Holder supposed to make everything better for black people? How?
The little they have done has met with relentless cries of racism!
Bettykath: what is the race of our President? Does he hold power? How about our Attorney General? Does she hold power? Power comes from thee barrel of a gun. The Commander in Chief holds the guns. After that you have the Chief Prosecutor. She has some power.
Examples of Free Speech:
“Segregation now, segregations tomorrow, segregation forever!”
–George Wallace
“Where da White women at?”
–Blazing Saddles
“Three spots on the wall.”
– Who Flung Foo
Now how does one handle these three forms of statements?
If a professor made the first statement he/she would not last long at Harvard or Yale. Unless they were referring to segregating the Ebola patients from the non Ebola patients.
If a professor made the Blazing Saddles statement might he get away with it if he was merely being humorous at say an all Black event at a Black sororiety on campus. Do we have all Black sorieties on campus anymore? Can a professor just be humorous or must they stick to serious statements?
The last statement is an old joke which somewhat ridicules a Chinese person. It is more humorous and more mean if you put the word: By in front of Who Flung Foo. There really are no Chinese people with that name. A Harvard or Yale professor who made this joke would be in trouble.
The first statement probably gets a professor fired quicker than the other two. Unless the Ebola aspect is inserted.
In sum. A White bigot has no place in Harvard or Yale. A Black guy who makes jokes has room to manuever. A White or Black person who makes fun of Chinese will perhaps get sanctioned.
All things being equal, the notion of Free Speech has limitations in the American Ivy League. And another aspect is this. People in the Ivy League have a peculiar American syndrome. It used to be attributable to folks who belonged to country clubs. They think their itShay don’t stink. Just listen to the way they say Harvard or Yale. Listen how they demean Kent State. Those who think that their itShay don’t stink are a different variety of bigot. Different strokes for different folks. If you are a parent you have to consider all these things before you subsidize your offspring to attend some Ivy League country club. Listen to the oral argument from the Supreme Court on CSPAN. Those Justices who all went to Harvard and Yale think that their itShay don’t stink. There is something wrong with this America. Pull your heads out of the sand.
What do I think?
I think she will continue to be a PR liability to the university.
bettykath
1, May 12, 2015 at 1:49 pm
Considering that white men hold the power in this country,
1. When will the extremists join the new millenia? Their talking points are generations behind.
2. Even if white men disproportionately hold power in this country how does that justify discriminating against the white men who don’t?
Some people’s principles are rotten to the core.