dagblog - Comments for "Racism for Dummies: Naomi Schaefer Riley Edition"

Write a bad column and, yes,

Anonymous — Fri, 11 May 2012 05:16:00 +0000

Write a bad column and, yes, you could be fired if it's bad enough. Do bad enough work in any job and that is a potential consequence. And when you combine bad with lazy (ie, not reading the material about which you have chosen to criticize, which is what Ms Riley did), you increase those chances.

For all of those who were

Verified Atheist — Wed, 09 May 2012 17:20:51 +0000

In reply to You should publish it here.

For all of those who were waiting on bated breath, here is a dissertation that should have been titled, "On how God created Brains. Also, Tits: An Ontological Post-Structuralist Analysis of Ron Paul, Michael Jackson, and Nicki Minaj".

For what it's worth, I agree

Verified Atheist — Wed, 09 May 2012 17:15:29 +0000

In reply to Not that I care about

For what it's worth, I agree with you. I don't like what she wrote, but if this commentary is the sole reason she was fired, then that doesn't seem right.

Not that I care about

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 09 May 2012 06:34:11 +0000

In reply to Really? Write a bad or

Not that I care about company, but good to see I'm not alone on this one:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/05/perils-criticizing-black-studies

http://reason.com/blog/2012/05/08/chronicle-of-higher-education-fires-blog

[while they say Riley just read the *titles*, it seems more likely she read the titles and brief descriptions/interviews found in the Chronicle. And the author of *that* piece likely just read the titles to praise the 5 "best". But it's a blog ferchrissakes.]

Really? Write a bad or

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 09 May 2012 06:23:54 +0000

In reply to Yes. I'm happy with that

Really? Write a bad or controversial column and you're fired?

Open opinion is fine for academia, but not for reviewing academia?

Have college dissertations suddenly become exceedingly valuable, rather than a first stab at becoming useful?

Some of the complaints were about an unfair attack on young students - when 4 of the 5 are in their 30's.

Read elsewhere in the Chronicle - law professors are overpaid and do too much research instead of teach. Humanities students are unused to failing and put out crap first drafts instead. And then there are off-topic musings about Israel's existence. Should these people be fired too?

As I noted - 3 of the dissertation topics looked interesting (though Frisk & Search might have been a manual rather than a thesis), while the one that riled Riley the most looked hackneyed. The original article describing the 5 was rather weak, and included is phrasing that's much more political than academic - "how the demonizing of black women still operates today", "Ms. Fraser was born into activism"...

Nevertheless, an interesting topic still doesn't mean an interesting or useful dissertation, and the purpose of dissertations is seldom just to scratch the author's itch - it's to search for a unique view to move the field forward and document it. Again, the original article doesn't highlight how this happens - instead praising theses that might be book reports or field manuals or catalogs for health resources - all useful, but not dissertations per se.

The worst thing that can happen to Black Studies is that it's uncritically accepted, that every pablum that comes out of it is praised and then ignored, that there's no pressure to improve and become more relevant and interesting.

There's already the danger for Black Studies to just be an extension of politics or popular culture, not an academic field (i.e. political science, history, musicology, sociology), and even those traditional academic fields have trouble fighting off irrelevance and over-fixated on relating specific events or movements rather than exploring principles and causes.

There's also the foregone conclusion - if I know how my thesis will end before I begin, is it really a thesis?

But sure, fire the woman because she made some snide (but not personal) remarks about a field. And then write a diary about how intolerant the right is.

[and again, see if this fits the image of intolerance you have for Riley:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304636404577297371335370072.html?KEYWORDS=NAOMI+SCHAEFER+RILEY ]

Yes. I'm happy with that

Doctor Cleveland — Wed, 09 May 2012 02:36:21 +0000

In reply to Hey Doc, I read in the

Yes. I'm happy with that result.

Hey Doc, I read in the

tmccarthy0 — Wed, 09 May 2012 01:26:12 +0000

In reply to Racism for Dummies: Naomi Schaefer Riley Edition

Hey Doc, I read in the Chronicle today that Naomi Schaefer Riley has been fired.

According to a Note to Readers:

When we published Naomi Schaefer Riley’s blog posting on Brainstorm last week , several thousand of you spoke out in outrage and disappointment that The Chronicle had published an article that did not conform to the journalistic standards and civil tone that you expect from us.

We’ve heard you, and we have taken to heart what you said.

We now agree that Ms. Riley’s blog posting did not meet The Chronicle’s basic editorial standards for reporting and fairness in opinion articles. As a result, we have asked Ms. Riley to leave the Brainstorm blog.

I think you would have done

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 08 May 2012 14:31:53 +0000

In reply to Racism for Dummies: Naomi Schaefer Riley Edition

I think you would have done better linking to the thesis descriptions themselves:

http://chronicle.com.proxy.cecybrary.com/article/A-New-Generation-of/131532/

3 seem to be interesting - birthing options & history for women of color and low-income women, how to thread the Stop & Frisk system by an ex-NYC asst DA, and research into gov/industry collusion in black housing development. The 4th on Shirley Chisholm/Barbara Rogers might be interesting - depends on insights & conclusions, while the one on black conservatives feels a bit meh - a foregone conclusion that affirmative action is good and those against are betraying their helping hand.

I don't need to read the dissertations to get an idea where they're going, though obviously can be surprised. And since these were chosen elsewhere as the top 5 (count them: 5), there doesn't seem a fair requirement that she examine every one in the program.

Riley appears not to have understood the reference to single-family housing - this wasn't a complaint about priorities, it was the program where collusion took place. Though I agree with Riley that the comment on racism in sub-prime lending crisis foolishly labeled that as the highlight, when poor whites likely were injured in far greater numbers.

Riley's attack on black maternity choice is plain dumb - she doesn't even know what natural childbirth literature is, and of course blacks often have different or limited options, and exploring healthy choices and trends makes for good public policy. Frisk & Search? yep, Lifehacker 101 for any NYC youth of color.

You, however misunderstand her comment about 1963. And the background pastiche of this diary, where only whites are racist, "Because that's what racism is: white people's entitlement to be dumb." Go on, don't hold back your feelings.

What I most dislike is the sense that Riley can't insult the program because it's a black studies program. Of course she can. People talk about how lame the PhysEd department is, how ditzy theater majors are, does there even need to be a Geography or Sociology Department? So if a batch of Black Studies theses are crap, then the 2 obvious questions are: "Does the program itself serve a strong useful purpose?" (in this age of continual education cuts), and "If important, how to improve the quality of academics?" - both admitted students and quality of research/subsequent theses.

Well, in any case, the Chronicle has fired Riley. But she's already publishing at the Wall Street Journal. And surprisingly, if you look at her articles at both Chronicle & WSJ, they're not terribly wingnut - in fact the former are more about the pretensions of academia (teach-ins about sex with free vibrators for the nation's most exclusive university!!!???) along with some long-term destructive effects of student debt, how come 50 years after Port Huron students are still careerist and not terribly involved in social issues, or why seemingly promising 20-year-olds in prestrigious universities destroy themselves in dorm rooms boozing it up?

http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/author/nriley

Here's one she did on Islam in America - probably the most consoling anti-hysterical piece I've read in a while. And I guess it'll be a while before I read another one.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304636404577297371335370072.html?KEYWORDS=NAOMI+SCHAEFER+RILEY

Or would I know without her that a black man's about to be voted in to lead the Southern Baptist Convention? (certainly a watershed for the old South, with the religion that split from the Baptist Church to defend slavery)

PS - I'm also disappointed in the quality of editorial response both from 3 of the grad students and their faculty. Example:

To write such disparaging comments about young scholars and their expressions of intellectual curiosity is cowardly, uninformed, irresponsible, repugnant, and contrary to the mission of higher education.

Obviously, these academics are unfamiliar with current practice on American Idol, where young talent and non-talent alike is disparaged by Simon with vigor and enthusiasm. Academia - still frail wallflowers after all these years.

Can't anyone write a coherent non-pompous rebuttal that doesn't put you to sleep or make you want to lose your Wheaties? (Christ-like, I await the obvious barbs)

I love this blog. I have

Orlando — Tue, 08 May 2012 12:30:00 +0000

In reply to Racism for Dummies: Naomi Schaefer Riley Edition

I love this blog. I have nothing to add to the discussion, but I wanted to write that down. I was going to highlight my favorite paragraph, but the next paragraph was always better than the one before it. Just awesome.

And, I will always be a special snowflake. Just not a racist one.

You said "Ron Paul" - that

Qnonymous — Sat, 05 May 2012 19:53:29 +0000

In reply to a subtitle "Or how Ron Paul

You said "Ron Paul" - that should double the number of page hits for the Doc. Now let's see if we can set a record.

Facts:

Ron Paul rogers rabbits.
Ron Paul fought for the right of the partaaaaaaaay.
Ron Paul beggared beaver butts and behaved badly.
Ron Paul - not good at math.
Also, I hear he hates Black Americans. What's up with that, Paulistas?

You're welcome Doc!