dagblog - Comments for "Naomi Schaefer Riley and the Rules of Academe"

Someone posted elsewhere that

Donal — Thu, 10 May 2012 13:55:42 +0000

In reply to Naomi Schaefer Riley and the Rules of Academe

Someone posted elsewhere that Riley was married to a black man, the implication being that she could not therefore really be racist. She is in fact married to Jason Riley, a senior editorial writer for the WSJ, whose latest article, Affirmative Action's Stigma, supports the right-wing meme that Elizabeth Warren got a job by claiming to be a Native American.

Keeping up with hubby, Riley wrote a shallow piece, "The Most Persuasive Case for Eliminating Black Studies? Just Read the Dissertations!" but didn't actually read the dissertations. Her article would have fit right in at the WSJ, or most MSM outlets, where pushing hot buttons means ratings, baby, ratings! But apparently CHE readers want something better than what they can see, but probably don't bother watching, on TV. When she was called on not reading the dissertations, she doubled down. "There are not enough hours in the day or money in the world to get me to read a dissertation on historical black midwifery," essentially saying she has a right to pontificate without knowing what she's talking about. That is not an unknown viewpoint on dagblog—neither is doubling down—but we don't encourage it.

Brian Leiter makes an excellent point:

The allegations of racism arise from the fact that one could have undertaken the same exercise with dissertation titles in most fields, even philosophy. (Think how much fun a malevolent fool like Schaefer Riley could have with recent dissertation titles from Princeton!) But Schaefer Riley chose a field rich with "hot button" issues that lent themselves naturally to the various stereotypes into which the Right-Wing Blob deposits ideas and positions it can't understand. That all these issues, and the stereotypes, are demeaning, directly and indirectly, to African-Americans is no doubt what led many to assume Schaefer Riley is a racist. Maybe she is, but let's not lose sight of the most important fact, namely, she's a moron who couldn't defend her tripe in a debate with any serious scholar anywhere. This last point is really the more important one: her failing is not really moral, but intellectual, as anyone who has read her other "blog postings" at CHE would have known long ago.

Her firing is a triumph for intellectual standards in the public sphere. It should be celebrated.

Fair enough. Thanks.

Doctor Cleveland — Wed, 09 May 2012 17:47:46 +0000

In reply to I would never ask you to

Fair enough. Thanks.

I don't think that would make

Verified Atheist — Wed, 09 May 2012 17:27:58 +0000

In reply to Well, to qualify, only a few

I don't think that would make what would look like a typical Venn diagram. That first sentence, to be relevant, should say "only a few will read a particular dissertation" (otherwise, it's not true, as many people read dissertations in general). If that dissertation is about American midwifery and African-American women's history, then those people will also have read about those topics.

No, they're ongoing research,

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 09 May 2012 17:14:33 +0000

In reply to So how about we do read those

No, they're ongoing research, not finished nor published yet.

I would never ask you to

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 09 May 2012 16:46:40 +0000

In reply to I think there are

I would never ask you to mollify a conservative. It's icky and almost certainly futile.

I was just trying to keep you honest. :)

I think there are

Doctor Cleveland — Wed, 09 May 2012 16:29:43 +0000

In reply to Agreed. But think about the

I think there are inflammatory leftists, too. But I take your point.

In the end, I can't get around confirmation bias. The Bell Curve and its authors got denounced as racist, but were certainly not silenced. E. O. Wilson got criticized for Sociobiology, and he's done just fine. Ward Churchill talked out his ass on inflammatory topics, and eventually got his ass fired.

So yes, I see why conservatives feel ill-used. But short of allowing them to say whatever they want without evidence, or censoring liberals who do have evidence, I don't see any way to mollify those conservatives. I think Riley is a pretty easy test case. But people on the right wing are doubling down to defend her when she's got nothing.

Agreed. But think about the

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 09 May 2012 16:19:06 +0000

In reply to Okay, then. I cede your

Agreed. But think about the implications. Writing that violates standards of "political correctness" is by its nature inflammatory. So if you penalize sloppy conservative writers who challenge academic orthodoxy on race and gender (inflammatory writing) but ignore sloppy liberal writers who embrace the orthodoxy (non-inflammatory writing), you employ a de facto double-standard. Add to this consideration the phenomenon of confirmation bias--where people tend to be more critical of ideas they disagree with--and you can see why conservatives feel abused by academia.

That is not in to validate the hyperbole and hypocrisy of "reverse-racism," which you so eloquently pulverized in your last piece, but it does suggest that there is much more to this incident than sloppy research.

So how about we do read those

Luke Lea — Wed, 09 May 2012 16:08:36 +0000

In reply to Naomi Schaefer Riley and the Rules of Academe

So how about we do read those dissertations and see if they support Ms. Riley's contention. Are they available?

Okay, then. I cede your

Doctor Cleveland — Wed, 09 May 2012 15:56:20 +0000

In reply to OK, thanks, but the expert

Okay, then. I cede your point. It is much easier to talk about shit you don't know when you stick to uncontroversial topics. (And yes, by my standards there are some other people at the Chronicle who could be let go.) Talking about what you don't know is not, itself, a sufficient cause for getting in trouble.

But neither is talking about some sensitive topic, itself, sufficient to get in trouble. You're right that it has to be both. But it has to be both.

There is a traditional protection for saying controversial, and even inflammatory things that you can present reasonable evidence for. Riley had the "academic debate" card to play. But for that you need to do at least some minimal homework.

If Riley had gotten a bunch of recent PhD dissertations, read parts of them, and then trashed them in detail, she might still have gotten accused of bias. But she wouldn't have been fired over it.

OK, thanks, but the expert

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 09 May 2012 15:48:29 +0000

In reply to Well, Genghis, as I said in

OK, thanks, but the expert opinion issue that Destor addresses was not really the point of my comment. It was that Riley's failure to back up her point may have been the justification for her firing, but that wasn't why she was fired--any more than Summers was fired because of the weakness of his argument for sexual differences.