An EF-5 is brewing over at Brainstorm, the blog for The Chronicle of Higher Education.
One of its bloggers, Naomi Schaefer Riley, has come under fire for her no-holds barred criticism of Black Studies. Riley’s post came as a response to an article by Stacey Patton which was titled “Black Studies: ‘Swaggering into the Future’” published by The Chronicle. In that piece, Patton focused on the Ph.D. program at Northwestern University which is churning out its first batch of doctorates. The article also focused on the evolution of Black Studies as a discipline and its fight for legitimacy at the university level.
The links:
- Stacey Patton’s piece which features profiles and dissertation titles of Northwestern’s Ph.D. candidates
- Naomi Shaefer Riley’s response
- A rebuttal from Northwestern graduate students
- Riley defends her piece
- A rebuttal from Northwestern’s African-American studies faculty
- A response from Chronicle blogger Laurie Essig which suggests that the Chronicle is racist for publishing the piece.
- A defense of Riley by Chronicle blogger Mark Bauerlein
- A response to Bauerlein by Chronicle blogger David Barash
- Finally, a petition which now has over 5,800 signatures asking the Chronicle to fire Riley.
Riley takes to task some of the dissertations highlighted in the original piece. She writes:
If ever there were a case for eliminating the discipline, the sidebar explaining some of the dissertations being offered by the best and brightest of black-studies graduate students has made it. What a collection of left-wing victimization claptrap.
Riley points to a dissertation by Ruth Hayes titled “‘So I could be Easeful’: Black Womens’ Authoritative Knowledge on Childbirth” which grapples with the dearth of nonwhite women’s experiences in the natural child birthing literature.
Riley also scoffs at La TaSha B. Levy’s dissertation which examines “the long tradition of black Republicanism, especially the rightward ideological shift it took in the 1980s after the election of Ronald Reagan.” In her dissertation, Levy argues “that conservatives like Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, John McWhorter, and others have ‘played one of the most significant roles in the assault on the civil-rights legacy that benefited them.”
It seems pretty clear that Riley is criticizing the academic fluffery of Black studies. Also it’s axiomatic leftward bent which indicates that the discipline is not rigorous or critical of itself or its methodology – a quality that should be a crucial element of any niche that wants to be considered a discipline. But Northwestern’s Black studies graduate students read racism in those tea leaves. They responded:
One can only assume that in a bid to not be “out-niggered” by her right-wing cohort, Riley found some black women graduate students to beat up on.
Northwestern’s faculty and the Chronicle’s Laurie Essig leveled similar charges.
To them, Riley was racist for criticizing something that is self-labeled “Black studies” which also typically drafts black people into its fold. Thus any criticism of the discipline is automatically interpreted by some as a form of racism rather than an honest critic of the legitimacy of the discipline and its methods. Instead of pointing out why it deserves its own discipline, these students and faculty resort to the eternally damaging charge of racism.
For something to be considered an academic discipline – to have its own departments and journals, it’s own bubble away from the larger category of humanities or history or anthropology – it should aim to answer a question. But Black studies – just like Women’s studies, Chicano studies, and Arab studies, etc. – proceeds from an answer. The answer that Black studies provides is that black people are victims in this racist Western white supremacist society. It then asks questions to verify the answer.
If Northwestern’s dissertations are any clue, you’ll never see a Black studies department issue a critique of, say, hip-hop or rap or the embrace of the anti-authoritarian lifestyle which arguably holds many black down. Black studies aims to study the black experience, but it assumes that such an experience can only be crafted by whites and not blacks themselves. Blacks, the group supposedly being studied, are never actually the object of study.
One imagines Alex Trebek’s popular game show: “This group is the victim of white supremacism in the United States” “Who are black people?”
In her original piece, Stacey Patton shows the fundamentally closed-off nature of the discipline. She mentions “scholars on race” which reminds us that blacks make up the bulk of “scholars on race” and that if a non-black person were to obtain the position they’d surely have to hold the leftward bent which is critical of white supremacist society. This would be akin to economics doctorates only being granted to Keynesians.
David Horowitz has also pointed out that there is a discipline called “whiteness studies”. But instead of holding whites as either victims or heroes, the discipline operates from the presumption that “whites are evil”. We also wouldn’t expect a highly-ranked university to grant a doctorate to a white academic who held that whites or white culture are superior to others.
This is reminiscent of the response to a white paper put together by three Duke professors earlier this year. The profs compiled statistics that showed that Duke’s black students had lower GPA than other groups and that they switched from hard science disciplines to humanities more often than other groups. These disciplines are typically viewed as being easier than natural sciences, maths, etc. But the black student union grabbed onto the white paper and suggested that it was a form of racism rather than addressing the argument and the facts presented.
Like this:
Like Loading...
If the criticisms of any area studies falls on deaf ears or worse provokes ire, so be it. They deserve the results of investing ?seven years and Northwestern levels of tuition in worthless doctoral degrees. It´s so damn funny actually.
Only in ridiculous almost bankrupt America; lets put a fork in this turkey, it is almost done.
I can barely stand to read any of the articles in the debate. Masturbatory, tribalistic left-right chucking of chimp chocolate, the lot of it. I hope they all get fired.
I assume none of these scholars are paying anywhere close to sticker for this stuff.
nydwracu:
you can bet that the only one who stands a chance of being fired is the one who ridiculed Black studies as a discipline. the others are perfectly safe. you never lose defending black/women/minority victimology. if it isn’t already taken i’d like to codify this law and put my name on it.
FWIW, Naomi Schaefer Riley is married to her former colleague at the WSJ, Jason Riley. His writing is thoughtful and wide-ranging, and he is black. If NSR were a liberal, that alone would excuse any charge of racism on her part.
Criticizing ANY activity of blacks is racist, don’t you know?!
In fact, both Black studies, and whiteness studies are INSTITUTIONALLY racist towards Whites. Talk of white privilege is pseudo-science and a conspiracy theory. God exists, so these leftist scum will burn eternally in hell!!!
Hopefully she has the courage to say: “go ahead and fire me if you want, I value my honor more than my blog. I’ll happily be a martyr for free speech and academic freedom.”
She seems to be sticking to her guns so far. Keep us updated on this, Chuck.
Roman:
I actually spoke to her. She’s not backtracking or apologizing.
And Raybury’s input above is fascinating. I didn’t know her husband is black. I wonder if her critics know that and, if they do, if they will make the argument that Riley can still be racist despite that fact.
Pingback: Jeopardy: Black studies edition » Bydio
@Chuck
I can’t believe she is not backing down. This is amazing. Maybe she will if they turn up the volume.
She seemed adamant. I hope she doesn’t mind me saying that on here (not that anyone will read it). She wasn’t ragging on them because they’re black so that sweeps out one entire plank of the argument.
I didn’t know her husband is black. I wonder if her critics know that and, if they do, if they will make the argument that Riley can still be racist despite that fact.
It typically doesn’t stop them. In fact — at least in the case of white men with black chicks — they’ll even use the relationship to ENHANCE the racism charge: that it’s obviously just another assertion of dominance and power over an oppressed person.
I recall talking with some black friends awhile back when Kid Rock was under fire because he’d used a Confederate flag on stage (a la Lynyrd Skynyrd). I pointed out that the guy has a son by a black woman. They practically hissed. Not only wasn’t it a defense against the notion that he’s racist — it even made it worse. As if frikking Kid Rock is just some 18th century slave owner having his way with the African gals.
There’s no acquittal from a mindcrime charge.
Yes, White men with Black women is a form of race-mixing they sure don’t like. On the other hand, there are Black men who post pictures of good-looking Black women on WN fora, because they think this will change the WNs’ mind. Anyway, race-mixing between Black men and White women hurts Black women, a doubly “oppressed” group. And Liberals place abortion clinics in Black neighborhoods, gradually eliminating pure-blood Black people. Puzzling, all very puzzling.
The Wichita Massacre perps used the fact that one of them has a white girlfriend as an argument in their criminal trial that they don’t hate white people. That’s hogwash, of course. It’s perfectly consistent to hate another group and sleep with their women.
Chuck Rudd 05/05/2012 at 1:52 pm
And Raybury’s input above is fascinating. I didn’t know her husband is black. I wonder if her critics know that and, if they do, if they will make the argument that Riley can still be racist despite that fact.
She “stole” an educated black male from the “sistas”. Strike one. She criticized black studies. Strike two. If she backs down and apologizes. Strike three.
PA 05/05/2012 at 4:52 pm
The Wichita Massacre perps used the fact that one of them has a white girlfriend as an argument in their criminal trial that they don’t hate white people. That’s hogwash, of course. It’s perfectly consistent to hate another group and sleep with their women.
The DA claimed that in that Tennessee case, Christian and Newsome? murders. He claimed because one of the black killers had a White girlfriend he wasn’t racist. Amazing the mindgames.
WNs, especially those on Stormfront and VNN, can’t grasp that concept. Even admitting that women of enemy groups can be sexually attractive results in a permaban. Alex Linder does believe, however, that Black MEN are very attractive to women.
Remarkable is that “stealing” by White WOMEN is seen as racist.
Related: The academic integrity of the African and Afro-American Studies Department at UNC-CH – forgeries and police involvement and a forced retirement and grades being awarded for classes where the professor never bothered to show up. and … and .. and
Why doesn’t stuff like this ever happen in physics departments?
Naomi Schaefer Riley and .Jason Riley.
She graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University in English and Government. She lives in the suburbs of New York with her husband, Jason, and their two children..
A Duke “white paper”? Dats raciss!
Would I be wrong to guess that the WSJ’s Naomi Schaefer Riley is married to the WSJ’s black op-edster Jason Riley?
“I have black friends” is pretty easy to dismiss. “I have a black husband and two black children”, not so much. I’m surprised she hasn’t mentioned this. I guess she’s either saving it to use at a moment of maximum effectiveness, or she doesn’t want to exploit her marriage and family to score political points.
Either way, this is a fairly fascinating story. Just goes to show how you can never just disagree with a liberal. They really do have to prove you are a terrible human being if you don’t agree with them.
Some of my best offspring are black.
you can bet that the only one who stands a chance of being fired is the one who ridiculed Black studies as a discipline. the others are perfectly safe. you never lose defending black/women/minority victimology. if it isn’t already taken i’d like to codify this law and put my name on it.
Rudd’s Law?
I’d even extend it: all sides sufficiently close to the mainstream are willing to get rid of their crazies, but ‘crazy’ is defined by… well, not quite the left, since in some places, they don’t get to talk economics. I like Moldbug’s term, Universalism.
On economics, the Left is muzzled. That is why I use scare quotes; Cultural “Marxism”. The present System is ideologically contradictory. On the one hand, poor individuals are seen as lazy, but poor population groups cannot be seen as lazy, that would be racist etc.
I celebrated Cinco de Mayo by watching the Kentucky Derby.
32 paragraphs into the original essay, the author gives useful information on Black Studies, via stereotypes,
“ and erase some pernicious stereotypes about black-studies programs that remain. Some of the most common are that the programs are plagued by infighting and fiscal mismanagement, have dysfunctional relationships with their universities, are parochial and ideologically driven, and have lost their social mission and political edge.
Stereotypes are a reliable source of information. The first 31 paragraphs were promotoinal sloganeering.
Try this on for academic size: Shaq gets his Ph. D. Check out from what school, in what subject area, and for laughs, be sure to read the title of his thesis. http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2012/05/06/it-dr-shaq-now-as-nba-great-gets-doctoral-degree/#ixzz1u4FETlS9?test=latestnews
@marie
That’s funny, although its still not bad for a jock.
I’ve never ever remotely respected either Black Studies or Women’s Studies, including when I was at college. They’ve always been regarded as uniformly leftist, attacking of white men, and as gut courses for the ideologically correct. They’re a way of inflating black and rad feminist women’s grade averages.
As well I think that lots of profs in lots of courses after the introductory huge ones, or in freshmen seminars consciously or subconsciously give black students better grades than they deserve, through a thought process that goes something like, well she did better than I expect and quite well really, considering … Or, well I don’t want to be too discouraging or seem racist so the lowest grade I’ll give a black even one who obviously hasn’t done the reading or didn’t understand it at all any lower than a C, though I’d like to not go lover than a B is I can somehow justify that to myself … well that would be less discouraging, wouldn’t it?
Here in Germany, one can study;
“European Studies”
“American Studies”
“Asian Studies”
“Arab & Islamic Studies”
etc…
The bottom line is that regional studies – culture, history. economics, politics and law are wholly legitimate – if the approach is rigorous. Indeed I find it even more interesting when people hailing from outside their particular region of interest specialize on that area. For example when Europeans study “American Studies” or when Americans study “European Studies.” Coming from outside the experience gives a more universal perspective when the material is examined as an object? Perhaps a more “objective” and dispassionate view?. We study fish or amphibians without residing in water, it should be possible to study other domains without being a native.
For these reasons I would expect that many of the best experts of Black or Afro-American studies come from outside those communities. Nobody would think anything was off if a Black academic was professor of Russian, European or Asian studies. Why is it so hard to imagine a Department of Black Studies with some white professors? Perhaps some white academics see a great opportunity to take advantage of an area where their kind of skin pigment is underrepresented…
Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: Week of May 13, 2012
Am I the only one that finds the whole “Victimology Studies” unintentionally hilarious? Who else but a moron would loudly proclaim “Look at me! I’m a victim!”, “I’m oppressed!”, “I’m offended!”.
Is there anything more pitiful than a bunch of navel-gazing, AA, pseudo-intellectual posers wallowing in their so-called “oppression”? Either way, it’s beyond laughable to shriek constantly about how pathetic you are. What a joke!
“Look at me! I’m a loser! Respect my victimness!!”.