Jump to content

Menu

Should BU withdraw the job offer?


MSNative
 Share

Recommended Posts

It was an ideal.

 

I think that from the safety of a computer keyboard in one's home or office, it is reasonable to expect people not to make hateful, divisive comments. Especially people who aspire to be respected in a field focused on race relations.

 

And it is wrong, in my opinion, to essentially praise her expressions on the logic that divisive speech is the way to whip racist people into shape.

Like many others on this thread, and has been repeated explained - I did not find her comments hateful or divisive. And I don't think the goal is to "whip racist people into shape". You can't possibly not understand that at this point, so, kind of pointless to continue to pursue this discussion, I guess.

 

But I do hope MLK does get brought up occasionally in context other than "how black people are supposed to talk about race".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Best I can understand it, some white lady went up after winning an Emmy (?)  Oscar (?) (I don't follow that stuff) and said something about it's time to fight for equality / equal pay for women.  And either then or in an interview afterward, at the end she said (paraphrasing) "all the groups we women have fought for in the past, including blacks and gays, need to help fight for women's rights now."

 

So then a couple of black women wrote rather scathing commentaries on that.  First saying her words were poorly chosen as they seemed to imply that she considered blacks and homosexuals to be outside the category of "women," and therefore she must have meant "black women need to fight for white women."  Second, attacking the idea that black women need to fight for white women.

 

Then someone brought this up in a facebook discussion, linking one of those articles, and a commenter said the article was hurtful to her as a white rape victim.  She said it made her cry among other things.  Then the illustrious professor posted a series of rather ruthless comments attacking and deriding this lady, including her feelings as a rape victim.

 

Now I don't 100% agree or disagree with any of the women involved from the beginning of this post on down.  I don't agree the award-winner white lady was trying to say "black women need to help white women" but yeah, her words were clumsy - but then again, speech is not like writing - you don't get to re-read and edit before you publish.  No news on whether she agrees she should have been more clear about all women working together regardless of color.  While I do agree that, on average, black women have it harder than white women, I don't agree that we don't have enough in common to have any common goals.  But we can agree to disagree on that.  Thing is, there is a way to talk if you want to be heard, and those articles and facebook posts weren't it.  I start to wonder if this writing style is the new thing for black women discussing race.  If so I think it is misguided and a great way to become even more marginalized.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like many others on this thread, and has been repeated explained - I did not find her comments hateful or divisive. And I don't think the goal is to "whip racist people into shape". You can't possibly not understand that at this point, so, kind of pointless to continue to pursue this discussion, I guess.

 

But I do hope MLK does get brought up occasionally in context other than "how black people are supposed to talk about race".

 

nm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot possibly understand? What is it about you that makes you think you are so superior when it comes to understanding?

 

I can understand your argument and disagree. You can consider the possibility that your view is just that - your view.

 

Ok here is another way of saying it: you cannot possibly believe I don't know your view, and disagree with it , and therefore find that it is not, in my opinion, a logical rebuttal to anything I said.

So, 'no point in continuing to discuss'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok here is another way of saying it: you cannot possibly believe I don't know your view, and disagree with it , and therefore find that it is not, in my opinion, a logical rebuttal to anything I said.

So, 'no point in continuing to discuss'.

 

We are both entitled to our opinions.

 

Sometimes people aren't replying to educate you, but to add to the conversation that many are reading.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'd be amazed at what is possible.

 

We are both entitled to our opinions.

 

Sometimes people aren't replying to educate you, but to add to the conversation that many are reading.

 

 

I do agree with that last point.  My comments about MLK as "how black people are supposed to talk about race" vs how other political or social groups are encouraged to advocate for themselves was not intended to change your mind.   I suppose anything is possible. But I wasn't too hopeful on that one, TBH.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is utterly ridiculous.

 

This thread is about one individual woman whose personal tweets were racist and offensive.

 

For some reason, you seem to think it is perfectly acceptable for a black woman to post multiple racist and nasty comments about white people, but you are hyper-sensitive to even the slightest hint of a negative comment made by a white person about black people.

 

You and a few others appear to be deluding yourselves into thinking the thing you term "reverse racism" doesn't exist and wouldn't matter even if it did. My suggestion to you is that racism is racism, and that "majority" and "minority" have nothing to do with it.

 

As long as people think it is acceptable for black people like this professor to post racist comments about white people, we will never truly have equality. Nothing is accomplished by targeting a particular group as "THE problem."

 

Believe whatever you want about that professor, but please also be aware that your personal prejudices are showing here. You are so busy accusing everyone else, but if this situation were reversed and it was a white professor posting the exact same comments about black students, you would be enraged and demand that she be immediately fired. There is no doubt in my mind that you would call her a bigot and a racist and say that she is intolerant.

 

Life is a two-way street. If it's not OK for one group of people to say something about another group, the reverse should also be true. But you don't want to acknowledge that, and I find that very unfortunate.

I'm catching back up here, but this post gets a slow clap of awesome from me. Very well stated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think after seeing the way she posted on facebook toward a woman who already said she was hurting as a rape victim, I would be scared to be this woman's student if I was any color besides black.  She apparently teaches sociology as well as AA studies, so it's not as if she isn't likely to have white students.

 

And you can't complain about the character limit on facebook.  She even managed to switch easily between uppercase and lowercase and to use lots of punctuation.  It's apparent that she takes on a yelling, demeaning tone when a white person raises a question.  And people leave the discussion.  Not exactly what I picture as a cradle of meaningful dialogue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this the facebook rant? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3086976/Go-cry-Hateful-words-black-Boston-University-professor-white-rape-survivor-written-Facebook-three-months-claimed-white-men-problem-America-s-colleges.html

 

I wish there was more in this article. I have no idea why they identify the other person as a white rape survivor when the rant was about equal pay, I think. I hope someone else has a better link cause this one just confused me.

 

This shows part of it.  There was more before the "you can take your claws out" comment.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this the facebook rant? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3086976/Go-cry-Hateful-words-black-Boston-University-professor-white-rape-survivor-written-Facebook-three-months-claimed-white-men-problem-America-s-colleges.html

 

I wish there was more in this article. I have no idea why they identify the other person as a white rape survivor when the rant was about equal pay, I think. I hope someone else has a better link cause this one just confused me.

 

It is confusing to me, too. Being a victim of rape is relevant only insofar as is relevant to the topic. As a victim of armed robbery, having been held hostage for a time, tied up and locked in a room, should I get special compensation when discussing things in social media? If I were to discuss dress at an airport, or whether or not shopping carts ought to be returned, should others make sure not to upset me, no matter the merits of my point? If armed robbery is sufficient for special compensation, what about events less dramatic but no less upsetting? Where should one draw the line with their contribution as it pertains to my emotional state? And if someone else's emotional state differs from mine, to whom should we defer? 

 

This is an example of why I had earlier suggested the value of divorcing one's point from the emotions they inspire in any reader. If one's sensitivities decide logic and reasoned arguments, then we are held hostage to the most sensitive, or most manipulate among us. If substance and credibility decide logic and reasoned arguments, then one's personal characteristics are irrelevant. The idea about using reasoned, rational arguments, the very concepts birthed from the Enlightenment, are valuable precisely because they are reliable and trustworthy. Even in personally upsetting scenarios. 

 

I thought I read BU reported she will start work July 1. Surely they have more information to make this decision than carefully chosen sound bites through social media. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think after seeing the way she posted on facebook toward a woman who already said she was hurting as a rape victim, I would be scared to be this woman's student if I was any color besides black. She apparently teaches sociology as well as AA studies, so it's not as if she isn't likely to have white students.

 

And you can't complain about the character limit on facebook. She even managed to switch easily between uppercase and lowercase and to use lots of punctuation. It's apparent that she takes on a yelling, demeaning tone when a white person raises a question. And people leave the discussion. Not exactly what I picture as a cradle of meaningful dialogue.

Thanks for the earlier summary of what happened before the claws comment. This fb exchange certainly does not reflect well on this professor. I agree with you that based on the tweets and fb post she does have quite a demeaning tone. It will be interesting to see if bu responds. Can you imagine if a male prof had posted the same thing?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is confusing to me, too. Being a victim of rape is relevant only insofar as is relevant to the topic. As a victim of armed robbery, having been held hostage for a time, tied up and locked in a room, should I get special compensation when discussing things in social media? If I were to discuss dress at an airport, or whether or not shopping carts ought to be returned, should others make sure not to upset me, no matter the merits of my point? If armed robbery is sufficient for special compensation, what about events less dramatic but no less upsetting? Where should one draw the line with their contribution as it pertains to my emotional state? And if someone else's emotional state differs from mine, to whom should we defer?

 

This is an example of why I had earlier suggested the value of divorcing one's point from the emotions they inspire in any reader. If one's sensitivities decide logic and reasoned arguments, then we are held hostage to the most sensitive, or most manipulate among us. If substance and credibility decide logic and reasoned arguments, then one's personal characteristics are irrelevant. The idea about using reasoned, rational arguments, the very concepts birthed from the Enlightenment, are valuable precisely because they are reliable and trustworthy. Even in personally upsetting scenarios.

 

I thought I read BU reported she will start work July 1. Surely they have more information to make this decision than carefully chosen sound bites through social media.

Do you think her fb posts reflect logic and well reasoned arguments? Do you think they refect on her personal character at all?

(No snark intended. I've enjoyed this discussion and the points you and others are raising. Just running out the door)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this the facebook rant? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3086976/Go-cry-Hateful-words-black-Boston-University-professor-white-rape-survivor-written-Facebook-three-months-claimed-white-men-problem-America-s-colleges.html

 

I wish there was more in this article. I have no idea why they identify the other person as a white rape survivor when the rant was about equal pay, I think. I hope someone else has a better link cause this one just confused me.

I would like to see the complete exchange as well. I will say, though, that the BU professor comes across as a very angry, insensitive, nasty, arrogant person, both in this link and in her tweets. Her use of curse words doesn't make her sound particularly intellectual, either. I wish we had more to evaluate than just a few brief quotes, though.

 

I would like to have read more of her FB posts to see if her arrogance is her general attitude, or if she was different before she got into the conversation with the other woman. Anyone can sound horrible in a few lines of text, so I'm trying to give her the benefit of the doubt until I see what happened before those few quoted sentences.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But...I'm saying this without snark...you don't get it.

 

Way back at the beginning of this thread, I said it would be derailed by people not understanding there is a difference between a privileged class speaking about a minority, and a minority speaking about those with privilege.

 

And it has been :)

 

There is no difference if what you are wanting is a world where people of all races are treated as people rather than people of X race. Hate is hate. The professor in question doesn't want equality with whites. She wants people of her color to have the same privilege she believes whites have. Big difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't all agree that the tweets were racist.

If the BU professor had said, "gay," "black," or "women," instead of "white" in those tweets, I am fully convinced that you would have immediately called her comments racist and bigoted. Because she was referring to members of the white population, you gave her a pass.

 

Perhaps you are not as open-minded as you seem to think you are.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the rape aspect was relevant because rape is a woman's issue that all races have in common.  I do think the rape victim lady came across as more emotional than intellectual.  However, I don't think it was necessary for her to be brutally attacked.  Even if she was ignorant, that is not the way to enlighten a person.

 

And, both sides were displaying too much emotion.  It is debatable who went further overboard on that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think her fb posts reflect logic and well reasoned arguments? Do you think they refect on her personal character at all?

(No snark intended. I've enjoyed this discussion and the points you and others are raising. Just running out the door)

 

Grundy says she's responding to a person who took an issue that wasn't about her and turned into something all about her (for the sake of soliciting pity, presumably I imagine, to give people the opportunity to shower her with assurances of value and worth). To play the victim for attention by distracting the reading audience from the focus on legitimate victims should be called out as attention seeking, and the worst kind. It's tragedy porn, and it's disgusting. I have no idea if that's an accurate account of the entire exchange, but the argument Grundy makes in the link is a reasonable enough for an informal, spontaneous, unprofessional format like facebook. 

 

I can only assume she's been invited to be a professor at a major university because she can field challenges within a calm, rational discourse, and can write logical, reasoned arguments drawing from historical events and current affairs in a calm, intellectual way. That is just a guess, a presumption, and a bias on my part as I assume professors are skilled in debating arguments without having to appeal to emotion. I wouldn't use social media as a judge of character in general. Mother Teresa comes to mind with regards to image and behavior being wholly different. But you know what, Grundy could be a total turd, too. I just don't think that is a given, nor that it matters with regard to these few examples shared.

 

I will admit though, because this is coming from Fox News, I'm automatically hesitant to believe it to be quality (accurate) reporting. They have a track record of working up a frenzy by appealing to emotional fears while systematically and purposefully ignoring evidence that would not support those fears. In a match between Fox and Grundy, I'll assume Grundy is being hung out to dry for fun and profit. Nothing so far has encouraged me to change my mind yet. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grundy says she's responding to a person who took an issue that wasn't about her and turned into something all about her (for the sake of soliciting pity, presumably I imagine, to give people the opportunity to shower her with assurances of value and worth). To play the victim for attention by distracting the reading audience from the focus on legitimate victims should be called out as attention seeking, and the worst kind. It's tragedy porn, and it's disgusting. I have no idea if that's an accurate account of the entire exchange, but the argument Grundy makes in the link is a reasonable enough for an informal, spontaneous, unprofessional format like facebook.

 

That was her opinion.  Not everyone agrees with that.  The article under discussion was very in-your-face toward white women, so it seems a stretch to say "this isn't about you because you're a white woman."  But, she's entitled to her opinion.

 

The rape victim poster was emotional and got a little carried away talking about her own personal experience in one of her comments.  This sort of thing makes me uncomfortable too, though it is not unusual to see it on the internet.  However, is there ever a good reason to post no fewer than 4 fb comments putting someone down for crying?

 

I can't imagine ever talking like that on facebook, nor have I seen anyone else do so on any page I've personally visited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She also likes to throw around the phrase "go all white girl."  Which, in context, means say stupid white racist stuff.

 

So "white girl" has a certain meaning for her.  Who wants to be a white girl in her class?  Not me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the BU professor had said, "gay," "black," or "women," instead of "white" in those tweets, I am fully convinced that you would have immediately called her comments racist and bigoted. Because she was referring to members of the white population, you gave her a pass.

 

Perhaps you are not as open-minded as you seem to think you are.

You said the same thing about me, which I remembered since it just earned a slow clap from Arctic Mama. But I don't think it's a reasonable accusation in either case. "You would" is not useful , not provable, and really not fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the BU professor had said, "gay," "black," or "women," instead of "white" in those tweets, I am fully convinced that you would have immediately called her comments racist and bigoted. Because she was referring to members of the white population, you gave her a pass.

 

Perhaps you are not as open-minded as you seem to think you are.

 

Earlier we visited the idea of plugging in one race for another in an equal exchange, and the unreliability of doing that as a means of obtaining insight. In any case, I think Sadie and Poppy would agree with me acknowledging there are outspoken women and people of color whose prejudice becomes an obstacle to dialog. I hear about "no men mondays" on some IRC channels, and claims that only women of color or transgender women can speak to oppression in society, anyone else's voice is not a legitimate voice for empowerment because they cannot understand real social oppression. I don't doubt these people make open dialog and a fair and equal exchange of ideas impossible, but I don't see these sentiments from Grundy from the tweets and fb bits and pieces Fox News lovingly chose for their audience. She may be one of those, but we've not seen it here, and so we ought not assume it so. Let's not lose sight of the fact that this is the news agency that assures Americans, despite "racist" columnist Aisha Harris' claims, that Jesus was white, just like Santa. ;)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said the same thing about me, which I remembered since it just earned a slow clap from Arctic Mama. But I don't think it's a reasonable accusation in either case. "You would" is not useful , not provable, and really not fair.

Based on a long history of reading forum posts on very similar topics, I stand by my opinions on how I believe both you and Sadie would react.

 

Obviously, you are both free to disagree with me. I'm fine with that.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of power positions, in the university, this professor is in a position of power over white students, not the other way around.  And yet certain people insist on referring to her as the oppressed, as "speaking truth to power," etc.  Even if her biased and caustic speech gets a pass in a room full of adult equals, she should be held to a fair and civil standard in her role as professor.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

She certainly does have some power and privilege in her role as a professor, and she should certainly be required to teach and grade fairly. Is there any evidence that she does not ? 

 

Being exposed to challenging ideas does not always equal lack of fairness. Even in the social sciences, you don't get graded on your 'PC'ness, you get graded on your ability to understand and respond to key issues in the area of study. 

 

I'm sure plenty of people take AA studies classes, and don't agree with all key issues; they're not being asked to agree, they're being asked to adequately and comprehensively UNDERSTAND those issues.

 

Time will tell, if any non-blacks are brave enough to take her classes.  (And remember, she teaches sociology as well as AA studies.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This who discussion reminds me of conversations with believers in a dominant religion who are convinced Big Liberal Gay Government is going to storm through the front doors of law abiding, God fearing citizens and forcefully vaccinate children, whisk them off to public school where they will be forced to hear Heather Has Two Mommies instead of the Pledge of Allegiance, and raise money for a Black Pride parade and purchase PBS subsidy food service because fresh fruit from home will be a suspension-worthy offense, or be forever labeled as the Enemy of the State. Some people respond with patient, reasoned arguments, some with satire, some with all caps. I can't blame a prof for getting tired of patient, reasoned arguments falling on deaf and stubborn ears. Personally, I like satire better, but to each her own. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think people need to be diplomatic or polite all the time. If that is what you think I mean, we are really miscommunicating. The Letter from the Birmingham Jail is an AMAZING piece of diplomacy. I don't believe there would be any social change without making people uncomfortable.

 

I have never read a blanket statement made by MLK Jr that was intended to stir up hate and fear. He was a doer, he backed his words up with actions. I LOVE action.

 

My problem with Professor Grundy's tweets is that I think they are intended to make an entire population less than equal, and I think that's the opposite of making the changes we need to make.Those college age young white men would fish her out of the ocean in she had a boating accident and the Coast Guard was called, they are serving in the military keeping her safe, they kept CA from burning up last year, ect and bad mouthing them as a group is not what a person who really wants to see things get better would do.

 

If I were doing racial relations work on her campus would she help me do the hard work? Stand in the freezing rain and chant for what's right? Meet with difficult people to to make law enforcement more fair on campus? Maybe, maybe not. It is not my business, and I don't care a bit if BU keeps her or lets her go, it's their campus to run how they see fit. I just don't think that venting is a vehicle for change. 

 

Her tweets do not make an entire population less than equal. I think white men are still okay, last I checked ;-)! Not going to fall off any equality pedestal anytime soon, and it's hyperbolic to suggest otherwise. Bottom line, you really don't know this person. You have formed an opinion about her -- and you are entitled to that opinion -- but you really don't know much about her or how she would interact with individual white men. She presented an argument against white male hegemony, not attacks against individuals. BTW, might it be possible that SHE might save the life of one or more white males herself -- we keep posting these fantasy-based scenarios in which the "angry black woman professor" is saved from the jaws of death by a unmistakably phenotypically white blond-haired, blued-eyed boy scout-turned-Navy Seal who in the act of saving her life (and, of course, not noticing her color) provides her with the redemptive opportunity to acknowledge the error of her ways and repent... (or realizes she's that horribly racist black professor who pinned a handful of tweets that cause domestic GDP to fall by 3% -- no, she dies...) And it's all bull****. 

 

It was her personal account - she gets to vent. Like her, don't like her. But let's stop with the angry black woman professor/poor, aggrieved white male student (whose life outcomes as a graduate of one of the top universities in the country, by the way, ARE NOT going to be hindered by some random entry-level professor) dichotomy. It's insulting and simplistic. 

I have to say, I do not understand the whole 'but these white college boys she so hates are the kind of people who will save her one day', as if white working class boys, black college and non-college boys, women and girls don't have anyone in their population who could be so selfless and brave as to save an angry black professor in her hour of need!

 

Fact is, some people help other people, regardless of their class, race, gender or sexual orientation. White college boys don't have a monopoly on it, that's for sure. And people in every population, including white college boys, have members who really couldn't give a **** about anyone in their hour of need.

 

It's a weird argument. I guess it comes from the emotion of feeling 'our boys' are under some kind of attack.

 

Thank you. Has a weird "white savior" ring to it. I'm sure that's not what was intended, but that's how it sounds, especially when repeated several times on the same thread. 

I simply don't agree that all 'calling white people to historical and current account' speech is racist. Insisting on a faux equality is just one way privilege is maintained.

Personally, I don't find her tweets racist. As a white person, who knows and likes many white young men, I do not feel offended on behalf of each individual. I acknowledge that (wealthy, straight) white men are problematic as a class when we talk about social systems. It's really that simple.

Thank you! If you look at her tweets, they are about systems -- and how those systems privilege white males over other groups. 

 

Like many others on this thread, and has been repeated explained - I did not find her comments hateful or divisive. And I don't think the goal is to "whip racist people into shape". You can't possibly not understand that at this point, so, kind of pointless to continue to pursue this discussion, I guess.

 

But I do hope MLK does get brought up occasionally in context other than "how black people are supposed to talk about race".

Thank you! MLK is held out as the "Noble Negro." I'd really like to institute a new rule: When making an argument about how to talk about race, racism, the status of African Americans, etc... one must quote someone other than Dr. King. It can almost turn into a drinking game - oh, yet another quote referencing "not by the color of their skin, but the content of their character"...  Really, African Americans get to be as varied, complex, complicated, and sometimes, contradictory as other people have been and continue to be. Even Dr. King didn't always say what "folks wanted to hear" -- umm, he was shot, and plenty of people hated him when he was alive. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re the FB 'rant': exactly what albeto said.

 

Hard to tell exactly without seeing the entire exchange, but I didn't find it disturbing.

 

I do find it disturbing that Fox news is trolling for 'dirt'. And I also find it disturbing that when a black woman speaks truth to power in a non white-sanctioned manner, many people react by finding a 'white victim' to champion.

 

I would have been disturbed if the professor had been telling the white woman to stop crying if the conversation was about sexual assault, but it was about the pay gap, and the responsibilities( or not) of minority women towards women of privilege. Her history of sexual assault was not relevant to the topic.

I see this as an invididual professor who has demonstrated bias and poor judgement- just as the Duke prof demonstrated bias and poor judgement. Those actions have led many to question whether all students would be treated fairly in their classes. Imo, both have. This isn't about people speaking truth to power. It's about potential abuse of professorial power over students. If either school were to fire the professors, I think they would be doing so based on that.

Bu code of ethics:

"Boston University trustees, officers, and employees are expected to undertake their responsibilities on the University’s behalf with diligence and professionalism and to comply with the highest standards of honesty, integrity, and fairness. This includes, but is not limited to, being respectful of the rights of others and forthright in all dealings with members of the University community as well as third parties;"

The BU faculty handbook lists this on its page dealing with sexual harassment:

"the conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance, academic performance, or educational experience, or of creating an intimidating, hostile, humiliating, or offensive working, educational, or living environment."

 

Respectful, professional and fair? Um, nope.

Conduct creating an intimidating, humiliating or offensive educational environment? Yep

 

I assume Duke has similar policies. I only looked up bu because people still seem to want to defend that prof and no one has suggested defending the Duke prof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MLk is only presented as the Noble Negro when it suits their purpose. I'd bet dollars to donuts that if someone started a thread on the greatness of him, you'd have a well known subset of posters arguing about his marital problems. I'm pretty sure it's already been done here if someone could do a way back type search.

Sadly, this was a thread back in the day. It got shut down pretty quickly if I remember correctly, but it did happen. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe I'm being bashed for quoting an MLK quote.

 

So are MLK quotes and references now banned?  I think that's what I heard someone proposing.  Or maybe they are only banned from use by people who believe that blacks are capable of racism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I quote a brief and well-known MLK quote and it means I'm a racist who wants blacks to be oppressed forever.

 

Prof. Grundy publishes numerous disparaging, angry, demeaning racial tweets and facebook posts, and she's praised as a force for positive change.

 

The objectivity in this thread is pretty impressive.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who the heck called you racist who wants blacks to be oppressed forever because of quoting MLK. I'm sorry, why do you say things like this? I can not be the only one who sees this pattern. Is there no middle ground ?

 

Comments like "MLk is only presented as the Noble Negro when it suits their purpose."  Who is "they" exactly?  Which purpose?

 

The multiple comments to the effect that my posting the MLK quote means I think blacks should quietly accept racist physical violence, horrible insults, economic discrimination, segregation, and so on.

 

Actually now that I think about it, all that was probably just a distraction from the point I was trying to make, which is that divisive speech is not the fix people are making it out to be.  And that is not just a white idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to wonder what the point of the professor's comments was.  If it was to express her personal anger, well, sure, she can be angry.  That's her right.

 

But if it was intended to fix a perceived problem, I wonder if it's accomplishing the goal.  Divisive speech (as pointed out), does not accomplish much but producing more hate.  (Now, if her goal was producing more hate, she has a right to do that)

 

Lumping a group of people together and then accusing them of behaving a certain way when many individuals did not behave that way is never very helpful.  Let me rephrase that -- it's generally counterproductive.  And the way the comments have been quoted, it does seem that she is talking about individuals as being a problem.  Not institutions.  So her approach (as quoted) seems to be that individuals need to stop, I don't know, being who they are.

 

Given that, her remarks (as quoted) ARE racist.  Because they are not addressing the institutions in society, but rather individuals who she assumes are acting in certain ways, based on their race.  The comments were not that some people benefit from how things are (which would not be racist) but that some people are themselves a problem because they behave a certain way.  And she "knows" they behave that way because of their race.  That's the difference.  You can't just decide now that individuals "can't" be racist.  That word was used with that meaning for many,many years. If the meaning is taken away from that word, then you're going to have to come up with a different word with that meaning. 

 

If she had tenure, the university wouldn't be able to fire her over these remarks.  If she put what seem to be her feelings into action by grading some students down based on their race then they might have a case for removing her even if she had tenure.  That crosses the line from free speech to something else. 

 

However, given that she is a recent hire without tenure, the university may at some point be able to "unhire" her (perhaps during some review process).  But that would not be a racist move.  That would be the university deciding whether they want their image to include someone who is a racist (please read my last paragraph before you claim she isn't racist).

 

However, all this reasoning is based on her remarks AS QUOTED.  Which may or may not be what she intended or even said.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MLk is only presented as the Noble Negro when it suits their purpose. I'd bet dollars to donuts that if someone started a thread on the greatness of him, you'd have a well known subset of posters arguing about his marital problems. I'm pretty sure it's already been done here if someone could do a way back type search.

Or they would take issue with many of his less famous speeches for their anti-war and any-poverty stances. Make no mistake, MLK was far more radical than most people seem to understand.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

“The American people are infected with racism.â€

 

“The thing wrong with America is white racism. White folks are not right. It is time for America to have an intensified study on what’s wrong with white folks.â€

 

“I’m sorry to have to say to you that the vast majority of white Americans are racist, either consciously or unconsciously.â€

 

What "racist" hateful peep said these three things?

 

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They, they, they.  Whatever that means.

 

MLK was inspired (in part) by Mohandas Gandhi, whose ideas were inspired by the non-violent aspects of Hinduism and probably other religions.  The "hate doesn't fix hate" comments are not flip statements made to keep whites happy.  They have an extensive history and were partially credited with getting the UK out of India without a violent revolution (although Gandhi was kind of radical too, and it wasn't all peaches and cream over there either).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perfect example of what I just posted above. No, L, you are not banned from quoting MLK and neither were you bashed. It was suggested that maybe there are other AA leaders/experts/worthwhile people who we can learn from. It wasn't a command from Slojo.

I was raised by racists. I grew up thinking Malcom X and Mandela were both extreme terroristic criminals. It wasn't until I was an adult that I learned about Malcom X and his contributions.

ETA- I see you changed your post. Still making outrageous leaps. Who the heck called you racist who wants blacks to be oppressed forever because of quoting MLK. I'm sorry, why do you say things like this? I can not be the only one who sees this pattern. Is there no middle ground ?

 

You are not the only one who sees this pattern.

 

Speculations as to why would be breaking board rules, but I'll bet it would be interesting to compare mental notes. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He also said that America could go to hell if we didn't solve poverty. 47 years from when he was killed and poverty and racial disparities in economic security are still unquestionably a huge problem.

 

“If America does not use her vast resources of wealth to end poverty and make it possible for all of God’s children to have the basic necessities of life, she too will go to hell.â€

 

Yet I seem to recall Rev. Wright taking considerable heat from Fox for a similar sentiment.

 

If MLK had not been killed and was still living, I'd bet my butt that the same news outlet that has so much trouble with this professor would be attacking him on the regular for his anti-capitalism, anti-war, anti-death penalty and views on white America. They'd treat him more or less like they do Jesse Jackson.

 

Everything MLK said about white Americans and racism still holds pretty close to truth. Person to person racial hatred is less of an issue now and our laws and leaders give lip service to the idea of equality but racism still shapes our world and lives.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I absolutely agree that MLK was not a universally loved person during or shortly after his death.  A lot of riots and looting occurred during the times when he was active, and many blamed it on him.  Some people said that during his speeches, when he said "we're not going to be violent," his tone of voice was really telling blacks in code to riot.  Or something like that.  Of course that was ridiculous.

 

He has since been essentially sainted, and that is not exactly objective, either.  Nobody gets it right all the time.  Yet the black community still holds him up to their children as a great example with really good ideas.  They haven't rejected him as far as I know.  They haven't accused him of being the cause of ongoing oppression, as far as I've heard.  So I thought it was OK to quote him.  I guess I was wrong.

 

As for wiping out poverty, good luck on that one.  I think people have been working on that for thousands of years, at least, so I'm not really surprised it hasn't been obliterated in the past century.  But on the other hand, MLK's definition of poverty was probably a lot different from America's current poverty benchmark.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, ok. So a professor writes prejudiced tweets and angry fb rants and she is now a hero who is being victimized by overwrought whites who fear her truth? Not my take on it.

 

I'd say this is a very poor summary of any arguments made by anybody in this thread. 

 

I see this as an invididual professor who has demonstrated bias and poor judgement- just as the Duke prof demonstrated bias and poor judgement. 

 

The two events are not equal. One person judges public policy and a history of behavior that systematically protects and benefits one group of people at the expense of the well-being of other groups, the other judges assumed character flaws supposedly innate to race. One has a foundation of evidence and data from which to draw arguments, the other relies on a foundation of historically prejudiced assumptions, devoid of evidence and systematically ignoring evidence to the contrary. One was on Twitter, an online culture in which shooting from the hip is standard, and social protocol is informal. The other was a newspaper editorial comment, a traditional publication culture in which arguments are carefully crafted to persuade readers, and social protocol is more formal and polite. To compare the two commentaries is interesting and arguably important, but to ignore the very content of what each wrote about makes the comparison useless. 

 

Those actions have led many to question whether all students would be treated fairly in their classes. Imo, both have. This isn't about people speaking truth to power. It's about potential abuse of professorial power over students. If either school were to fire the professors, I think they would be doing so based on that.

 

Who is the best judge of that, the staff of the university, with access to prior work history, published works, student reviews, or the American public, half of which thinks the universe was created some time after the Sumerians invented glue? 

 

 no one has suggested defending the Duke prof.

 

What possible defense could there be?

 

"I know a black guy, and he's not lazy. His name is Jim, not Jamaal, so we know his mother brought him up right. So, see? They're not all like that."

 

0.o

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see several differences with the Duke prof.  IIRC he's 80yo and on his way out, while the BU prof is young  and on her way in.  My first thought regarding the 80yo's unacceptable comments was that he may be going senile.  If he had his wits about him, he'd know better than to say those things, even if he thought them.  If I read it right, he has been on leave all year and his contract ends next year.  If that's true, he isn't going to be in a position to mistreat or miseducate students in a class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really, I have a hard time considering anything you wrote after stating that people here are saying she's a victimized hero. Maybe I missed something, did someone here call her a hero?

If not, then this is just one more case of talking past each other and making large leaps.

I was being hyperbolic responding to what I considered the overly dramatic post I quoted. The relevant part -"I do find it disturbing that Fox news is trolling for 'dirt'. And I also find it disturbing that when a black woman speaks truth to power in a non white-sanctioned manner, many people react by finding a 'white victim' to champion."

 

I deleted the comment because in rereading it was def snarky which I didn't intend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 but racism still shapes our world and lives.

 

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/07/what-do-prisoners-make-victorias-secret

http://atlantablackstar.com/2014/10/10/12-mainstream-corporations-benefiting-from-the-prison-industrial-complex/2/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/prison-labor_n_2272036.html

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jul/06/prison-labor-pads-corporate-profits-taxpayers-expense

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-norman/walmart-prison-labor_b_2224743.html

https://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/07/06/261319/scott-walker-prison-labor/

 

People who are sure they're not contributing to racism because they don't treat people unjustly face to face may not be aware of just how difficult it is to NOT support a system of profit and security founded on oppression, traditionally based on race. This system just so happens to provide the cheap labor Americans demand so the "savings can be passed on" to us. It's just a coincidence that prison population and crime statistics put blacks behind bars disproportionately to race or crime, right? Just a convenient coincidence. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/07/what-do-prisoners-make-victorias-secret

http://atlantablackstar.com/2014/10/10/12-mainstream-corporations-benefiting-from-the-prison-industrial-complex/2/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/prison-labor_n_2272036.html

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jul/06/prison-labor-pads-corporate-profits-taxpayers-expense

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-norman/walmart-prison-labor_b_2224743.html

https://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/07/06/261319/scott-walker-prison-labor/

 

People who are sure they're not contributing to racism because they don't treat people unjustly face to face may not be aware of just how difficult it is to NOT support a system of profit and security founded on oppression, traditionally based on race. This system just so happens to provide the cheap labor Americans demand so the "savings can be passed on" to us. It's just a coincidence that prison population and crime statistics put blacks behind bars disproportionately to race or crime, right? Just a convenient coincidence. 

 

I don't see anything wrong with giving jobs to prisoners.  It bugs the unions because they aren't making union dues off those jobs.  Maybe they should unionize the prison population.

 

Surprise, surprise, WalMart is one of the companies mentioned repeatedly in those articles.  The Unions' favorite scapegoat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see anything wrong with giving jobs to prisoners.  It bugs the unions because they aren't making union dues off those jobs.  Maybe they should unionize the prison population.

 

Surprise, surprise, WalMart is one of the companies mentioned repeatedly in those articles.  The Unions' favorite scapegoat.

 

"Job creation" is generally considered a positive thing by Americans.

 

Removing private sector jobs, which increases the need for public aid, is generally considered to be not good.  It's one of those rare things Democrats and Republicans agree on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...