We recently discussed the case of Saida Grundy, an incoming assistant professor of sociology and African-American studies at Boston University who released a series of tweets denounced by many as racist and sexist, including calling white males the main problem on college campuses and admitting how she tries not to buy anything from white people. While many called for Grundy to be fired, some of us defended her racist and sexist comments as an exercise of free speech done outside of her teaching responsibilities. However at the time, I noted “a series of tweets denounced by many as racist and sexist. “White masculinity isn’t a problem for america’s colleges, white masculinity is THE problem for america’s colleges.” Now we have such a case and it does appear to confirm some of our concerns that the same standard is not applied to those with opposing views. Duke University professor Jerry Hough has reportedly been placed on leave after posting comments online that were also denounced as racist. While Grundy was allowed to apologize for “indelicate” comments about whites, Hough is facing calls for termination and has reportedly been put on leave. [UPDATE: there are some stories indicating that Hough may have been on academic leave rather than “put on” academic leave. It is not clear from various reports.]
Hough was commenting on a New York Times editorial titled “How Racism Doomed Baltimore” and included an observation that Asian Americans don’t riot because “they didn’t feel sorry for themselves, but worked doubly hard.” He also wrote that “every black has a strange new name that symbolizes their lack of desire for integration” compared to “every Asian student [who] has a very simple old American first name.” Just as with Grundy’s comments, it is not necessary to debate the merits of such comments. What is at issue is the right to voice such views outside of the classroom and off campus as a matter of free speech. As with Grundy, these views may also be part of Hough’s academic views as political science teacher. His bio states that “his current research centers on the establishment of the state, identity, markets, and democracy in the United States.”
He later defended his comments and said that “Martin Luther King was my hero” and insisting he is “strongly against the toleration of racial discrimination.”
Duke Vice President for Public Affairs and Government Affairs Michael Schoenfeld released a statement quickly that said that “The comments were noxious, offensive, and have no place in civil discourse.” Boston University was right to treat Grundy’s comments as an exercise of free speech. If Hough has been put on leave, Duke has positioned itself on the other side of the free speech divide and has decided that it will now impose disciplinary action for academics who espouse offensive or obnoxious views outside of the class room. The problem is a lack of a standard that explains where this line. It is not simply a question of what speech will be considered permissible outside of the classroom but how the school will limit principles of academic freedom and free expression under such a standard in both academic writings and classrooms. It is a dangerous and slippery slope. The greatest problem is that the uncertain standard creates a chilling effect on academics, particularly untenured academics in what views will be tolerated. In the academic world, such uncertainty can be devastating and strikes at the very heart of the academic mission.
Here are Hough’s full original comments:
“This editorial is what is wrong. The Democrats are an alliance of Westchester and Harlem, of Montgomery County and intercity Baltimore. Westchester and Montgomery get a Citigroup asset stimulus policy that triples the market. The blacks get a decline in wages after inflation.
But the blacks get symbolic recognition in an utterly incompetent mayor who handled this so badly from beginning to end that her resignation would be demanded if she were white. The blacks get awful editorials like this that tell them to feel sorry for themselves.
In 1965 the Asians were discriminated against as least as badly as blacks. That was reflected in the word “colored.” The racism against what even Eleanor Roosevelt called the yellow races was at least as bad.
So where are the editorials that say racism doomed the Asian-Americans. They didn’t feel sorry for themselves, but worked doubly hard.
I am a professor at Duke University. Every Asian student has a very simple old American first name that symbolizes their desire for integration. Virtually every black has a strange new name that symbolizes their lack of desire for integration. The amount of Asian-white dating is enormous and so surely will be the intermarriage. Black-white dating is almost non-existent because of the ostracism by blacks of anyone who dates a white.
It was appropriate that a Chinese design won the competition for the Martin Luther King state. King helped them overcome. The blacks followed Malcolm X.”
Hold everyone to the same standard. Either all professors will be fired for their non-PC free speech on their own free time, or none of them will.
There is no defense for a double standard.
1. It’s fun to watch Progs eat their own.
2. For white males wondering what they are permitted to say, here is the current Prog rule: Shut up. Say nothing. Embrace false affirmation.
Issac makes some good points here but his conclusion trips over the bar.
In general though these two professors are NOT speaking from the same vintage point, and to not see it is be blinded by that white privilege we speak of (by the same, white privilege should be better named white male privilege because even white women are subjugated by it.)
One speaks out of power, from within the establishment, while the other speaks from outside the establishment whose sole purpose, to her, might as well have been to insure she never gets to speak out.
The male professor comparing Asians to African americans is an idiotic perspective that ignores both history and the social constructs of this country.
————————————————
From http://www.epi.org/publication/making-ferguson/
“Many of these explicitly segregationist governmental actions ended in the late 20th century but continue to determine today’s racial segregation patterns. In St. Louis these governmental policies included zoning rules that classified white neighborhoods as residential and black neighborhoods as commercial or industrial; segregated public housing projects that replaced integrated low-income areas; federal subsidies for suburban development conditioned on African American exclusion; federal and local requirements for, and enforcement of, property deeds and neighborhood agreements that prohibited resale of white-owned property to, or occupancy by, African Americans; tax favoritism for private institutions that practiced segregation; municipal boundary lines designed to separate black neighborhoods from white ones and to deny necessary services to the former; real estate, insurance, and banking regulators who tolerated and sometimes required racial segregation; and urban renewal plans whose purpose was to shift black populations from central cities like St. Louis to inner-ring suburbs like Ferguson.
Governmental actions in support of a segregated labor market supplemented these racial housing policies and prevented most African Americans from acquiring the economic strength to move to middle-class communities, even if they had been permitted to do so.
White flight certainly existed, and racial prejudice was certainly behind it, but not racial prejudice alone. Government policies turned black neighborhoods into overcrowded slums and white families came to associate African Americans with slum characteristics. White homeowners then fled when African Americans moved nearby, fearing their new neighbors would bring slum conditions with them.
That government, not mere private prejudice, was responsible for segregating greater St. Louis was once conventional informed opinion. A federal appeals court declared 40 years ago that “segregated housing in the St. Louis metropolitan area was … in large measure the result of deliberate racial discrimination in the housing market by the real estate industry and by agencies of the federal, state, and local governments.” Similar observations accurately describe every other large metropolitan area. This history, however, has now largely been forgotten.
When we blame private prejudice, suburban snobbishness, and black poverty for contemporary segregation, we not only whitewash our own history but avoid considering whether new policies might instead promote an integrated community. The federal government’s response to the Ferguson “Troubles” has been to treat the town as an isolated embarrassment, not a reflection of the nation in which it is embedded. The Department of Justice is investigating the killing of teenager Michael Brown and the practices of the Ferguson police department, but aside from the president’s concern that perhaps we have militarized all police forces too much, no broader inferences from the events of August 2014 are being drawn by policymakers.
The conditions that created Ferguson cannot be addressed without remedying a century of public policies that segregated our metropolitan landscape. Remedies are unlikely if we fail to recognize these policies and how their effects have endured.
po – the same problem that blacks had with ‘red-lining’ Asians had with red-lining. Since I am married to someone who is Asian I have some insight into the problems of the Asian community in the Phoenix area. Because they were not only ‘red-lined’ but the Chinese were kept out by the Chinese Exclusionary Act, they cleverly formed associations where they loaned money to each other to open businesses and expand them. My late father-in-law was a collector of loan money, which had to be done every week. They embraced the American dream.
“In the academic world, such uncertainty can be devastating and strikes at the very heart of the academic mission.”
You must enjoy the fairytale that is this academic mission. Mission for who? That of course is the proper question.
Eugene Debs was not prescient when he said that he is suspicious of intellectual leaders (professors).
Most of y’all do not care about truth or knowledge, but rather how that truth or knowledge relates to your standing in society during your life and after (legacy). That has been proven through almost all of human history.
Both of these professors (Boston U & Duke) demonstrate that message. They care more about my (as a student) color than what they are supposed to be helping me learn.
This blog demonstrates that message to some degree. Not necessarily on racial topics, but the rank elitism is antithetical to the “mission.”
Like Plessy, folks are dissing Ferguson again.
Someday America will climb out of the cesspool and even elect an African American President. America would go even farther if they elected one from the midwest and perhaps even a law school professor. Oh, that day might come in a hundred years. Two hundred after Plessy.
Bam Bam
While you were totally off the beam on the other post regarding the guy wanting to wait for the adviser, here you recaptured your footing.
This is all part of the ‘adjustment’ period from having been treated so inhumanely for centuries, and even after the laws changed. Blacks do have an axe to grind. There is a substantial reason for their anger.
However, the longer the ‘adjustment’ period the longer it will be before the blacks in the US ALL get out of their misery and despair at the bottom. Affirmative action has proven that given an opening a minority can perform as well as anyone even if the opportunities along the way have been denied. The examples are there. The main problem is that there is only one system and you either get with the program or waste your life.
There are a lot of unfair conditions in the US that give those of African American background, Hispanic, and Asian backgrounds greater obstacles to overcome. The country has and continues to implement policies to reduce these obstacles. But it will not happen over night. It is, however, the achievement in the face of obstacles and adversity that is most prized in the mythology of this country. A black becoming a doctor is a greater achievement than a white becoming a doctor, regardless of their abilities. There is a sweeter victory for the African American in the same reward offered to all.
The longer the period of ‘adjustment’ takes the less sympathy the rest of the population will have to offer and the longer the minority will stay at the bottom in despair and anger. This ingredient, the essence of what the professor stated, is as important if not more important that the other elements in this society that places so many blacks in such dire straights.
And, as Bam Bam stated this professor’s statements were proactive and right on the money as compared with the black professor’s which simply reiterated the anger and despair of which she probably knows very little. There is a certain detachment in her position, a certain tarring with the same brush, a certain hypocrisy.
issac – I am unconcerned about the achievement, I am concerned about the quality of the doctor. For example, if I give all blacks an extra 10 points on every exam and all Latinos an extra 5 points and deduct 15 points from every Asian is it a level playing field? Which one do you want to have working on you?
The Duke professor is right. Duke does not have a history of backing the right horse.
And well said, Don de drain!
You mofos should stop making subjective comments. Neither of the professors’ comment was redeeming in any way, so as Inga said, either you fire them both or you let things work themselves out.
To stand here and make one comment valuable and the other not is idiotic and hypocritical. Some will identify with her and feel she spoke the truth as they see it, some will with him and feel he spoke the truth as they see it, so let’s take all subjectivity out of freedom of speech and make it evenhanded and fair.
Have to agree strongly with Bam Bam on this one. Well said Bam Bam.
Boston University 1 Duke 0
This was good old fashioned free speech. In fact, this was good speech, exactly the kind of speech that needs to be said at a university. Somebody is just fishing for a white man here. If this kind of speech is censored, you might as well close down the university. The thoughts he conveyed were good observations that nobody is allowed to think or talk about for fear of being labeled a racist.
Reblogged this on Scoop Feed.
Both profs are Bozos on the bus. Neither should lose their employment because of their comments. Both should be carefully evaluated on their classroom work and other work with students to make sure that they are not treating students improperly. If I could mete out “punishment”, I would require the BU prof to have dinner once a week for a year with different “white” owners of a business and would require the Duke prof to have dinner once a week for a year with different successful African Americans with unusual names.
Interesting standard “offensive and obnoxious” . By whose yardstick will it be decided whether the comment is offensive, obnoxious or a normative observation that makes people uncomfortable? Offense is such a subjective standard as I beleive is the term obnoxious. As a results, this standard will chill all comments by anyone who sees themselves as not in the protected class of speakers.
Negative comments will by their very nature offend someone; however, negative observations or comments Are necessary to generate rational discussions of serious issues. We cannot have standards that will chill debate or double standards that allow some people to say similar things but be given a pass.
It would be interesting to know whether or not he has a tenured position with the school.
I see a stark difference between his comments, which appear to encourage inclusion, hard work and assimilation, and Grundy’s, which call for separatism and discrimination based solely upon race. He compliments an attitude which fosters perseverance and determination, as a means to dissuade discrimination; Grundy just blames whites for all the ills and promotes boycotting any establishments owned by them. A white student, regardless of his talent and hard work, would not have a fair shot in her classroom, as indicated by her racist and hateful comments. In contrast, I have no doubt that any and all students, displaying talent and hard work in Hough’s classroom, would be fairly and honestly evaluated.
Duke U stays in the media for all kinds of negative stuff and when a positive act comes out it is also viewed as negative. Look at history and ask why so many blacks claim to be Muslim and follow Malcolm X.
If they were following MLK then they would be Baptist, or Methodist.
An if you follow Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton then all you want is to get rich off of tragedy.
The prisons and poor neighborhood of America are recruited by Islam in order for them to win Jihad here in America, But the Judeo Christian are afraid to go to the neighborhoods
One volunteer at the shelters said even the cops will not protect the streets ran by the gangs.
The Professor has studied the changes not by just reading but also interaction.
By removing his voice from Duke removes any chance to understand where America is headed.
King wanted all races to band together as one race united and X wanted an Islamic state.
What happens next is simple be headings in America on religious values of Islam.
Ask yourself this. What does your name stand for as a religious ethic symbol.
Did you change it to that of your religion. King did not ask for any one to change their name to reflect an Islamic or even an African name. But he did want peace by change of action towards each other.
The Prof. just pointed out that the meaning of a name can signal integration into a society of mixed colors and values.
Both sets of comments smack of racism. Either fire them both or don’t fire either. Maybe he should be made to apologize too. Or maybe he won’t be intimidated. We shall see.
Prof. JT,
Has the AAUP supported either professors? College Administration have been, for the longest, trying limit academic freedom and\or eliminate tenure. We need to see the colleges’ bylaws for both professors, delineating (1) what is expected of them before and after tenure is granted, and (2) the professors’ behavior outside of the classroom.
The courts usually side with colleges and university when it comes to law and higher education. I hope both professors realize this, and not decide to sue. Instead, I hope that they become more astute in their respective fields, and learn how to bite their tongue(s) if they love their jobs (if it’s not too late, a public apology would help?).