Professor Meets World: Saida Grundy and her comments about white college men

[gollygee]

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/05/14/what-happens-when-scholars-discuss-potentially-controversial-ideas-outside-bubbles

The situation and others like it raise important questions for scholars, regardless of whether they agree with Grundy. Among the questions: What, if anything, should they keep in mind when discussing potentially controversial ideas in public forums? In other words, what should scholars expect to happen when they leave the “bubble” of their discipline and, more broadly, of academe?

“I think sociologists who study race and gender found the comments fairly uncontroversial, given that white males are overrepresented in a variety of different pathological behaviors, some of which take place on college campuses,” such as binge drinking and accusations of sexual assault, said Matthew Hughey, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Connecticut who’s been following Grundy’s case, and who responded to a request for comment on it through the American Sociological Association. (The association declined comment.) “Her tweet in and of itself was grounded in empirical social scientific findings over the last half century.”

So why the controversy, which resulted in twin statements from both Grundy and Boston University, expressing regret over her remarks? “What ruffles people’s feathers is that they aren’t aware of the social scientific evidence, and/or they’re simply hostile to the idea of white masculinity being scrutinized,” Hughey said. He deemed much of the backlash against Grundy to be based on “false equivalencies,” or the idea that her statements were as bad as white male professors commenting similarly on a traditionally disempowered group, such as black women.

Of course, a likely minority of those who sounded off against Grundy this week are aware of the academic arguments against false equivalencies. So whose job is it to help bridge the gap between academics and the public, minimizing miscommunication across spheres? Hughey said professors have a right and perhaps a duty to be “radical” in its purest sense -- getting at the root of a problem and illuminating it for others. At the same time, he said, scholars from historically “marginalized” perspectives and backgrounds, such as Grundy, who is black, “have to be particularly careful about how they present their work.” That means leading with empirical data, “instead of speaking as if it is opinion or a personal brainchild,” he said.

[Buzz Clik]

1. "So why the controversy"? It seems the professor is learning a valuable lesson:

If you're going to make controversial and, frankly, disparaging remarks about a single demographic (to which you do no belong) then a) have your supporting data at hand and b) don't be stupid enough to launch your comments on social media.

[mythology]

2. Or at least don't make them on Twitter with its 140 character limits

One of many reasons I avoid Twitter.

[Buzz Clik]

6. Twitter is the worst, no doubt, which gets to this:

From the article linked in the OP:

Anyone who’s ever thumbed through an academic publication knows that what professors write, think or talk about doesn’t always translate to a wider audience. Ideas that are riveting to a group of scholars in the same field might elicit yawns from outsiders. Likewise, ideas that are relatively uncontroversial among colleagues might elicit outrage from the public.

Academic discussions in an academic setting are generally safe and never rise above (or below) the level of an intellectual exercise. When you blast it out over the 'net, the chances of being skewered by a bunch of trolling, emotional, irrational knuckleheads increases exponentially.

[Number23]

9. I think the point of the entire article is that the only reason her comments were "controversial"

was not because they were untrue but because they challenge the white, male patriarchy in this society.

“I think sociologists who study race and gender found the comments fairly uncontroversial, given that white males are overrepresented in a variety of different pathological behaviors, some of which take place on college campuses,” such as binge drinking and accusations of sexual assault, said Matthew Hughey, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Connecticut who’s been following Grundy’s case, and who responded to a request for comment on it through the American Sociological Association. (The association declined comment.) “Her tweet in and of itself was grounded in empirical social scientific findings over the last half century.”

...At the same time, he said, scholars from historically “marginalized” perspectives and backgrounds, such as Grundy, who is black, “have to be particularly careful about how they present their work.”

There was nothing inaccurate about her tweets. This, once again, comes down to the "tone" issue of how people from minority groups should speak to or about those in the majority, facts and truth be damned.

[aikoaiko]

14. Hughey's comments would make sense if there weren't 30 years

...of programs targeting binge drinking and sexual on campus.

[gollygee]

17. The fact that they're still happening to the extent they are after 30 years of programs

might make it particularly true. The word "pathological" is used, and if it's happening frequently despite decades of attempts to stop it, that seems pretty true.

[aikoaiko]

94. This issue is with targeting a population for change and that's been happening.

Pathology is a metaphor in this case and a weak one at that.

[Buzz Clik]

20. That may have been the point of the article, but it wasn't my point.

And, considering I made my point very clear, I'll let it go.

[Number23]

139. If there was a point beyond what you actually typed, then it is lost

What you typed:

If you're going to make controversial and, frankly, disparaging remarks about a single demographic (to which you do no belong) then a) have your supporting data at hand and b) don't be stupid enough to launch your comments on social media.

And I noted that the only reason they were "controversial" - to use YOUR phrase - is not because they are untrue but because they apparently challenge the white male power structure in this country.

[Buzz Clik]

140. fine.

1. "Controversial" wasn't my phrase; it was used multiple times in the article quoted in the OP.
   
2. Being untrue is not an essential ingredient for controversy.

As stated quite clearly in the article, "I think sociologists who study race and gender found the comments fairly uncontroversial, given that white males are overrepresented in a variety of different pathological behaviors, some of which take place on college campuses.” Okay, nothing wrong with that. There's data to support it, so discuss on.

The problem, as I stated and you quoted me, was saying this in social media. Twitter for chrissakes? Really? What did she think would happen when she tears into roughly 50% of the student body on the campus she's about to join, pointing out their pathological deficiencies and labeling them as "a problem population." You don't have to be white, male, or somehow part of the power structure to take offense when that kind of thing is said about you in social media. She wasn't making an academic observation; she was making social commentary. There's a world of difference.

[Number23]

143. I think she was making social commentary on the basis of academic evidence

Which is probably why so many people who know the most about this area have come to her defence while others who have likely never studied this had such a knee jerk response.

[Buzz Clik]

144. I think we're inches apart.

1) I think she was making social commentary on the basis of academic evidence. AGREED

2) Which is probably why so many people who know the most about this area have come to her defence AGREED

3) while others who have likely never studied this had such a knee jerk response. And these people would have no idea who she is had she not tweeted it out.

And, I will admit that it's likely that a lot of those who took offense don't like some young assistant professor eroding their power structure.

[JTFrog]

31. +1 n/t

[geek tragedy]

34. I have to disagree--if a white professor had made comments about the incidence of homicide

amongst college age black men and referred to them as a "problem population" it would have been perceived (certainly by me) as per se evidence of hostility towards young black men as a group and seen as giving rise to a hostile learning environment.

Or, if an Israeli professor had referred to Palestinians or Arabs as a "problem population."

Would have been more pernicious than is the case here? Absolutely, due to the privileged/oppressed power group dynamics.

But, professors are not only scholars and researchers and activists, they're supposed to be educators. Had the comments been limited to "white male masculinity" then you're talking about a concept that can be addressed. But when you refer to them as a group as a "problem population" that is extremely corrosive to the learning environment. It's stating that they--and not the culture they grow up in--are the problem. Instead of attacking the cultural forces that divide everyone, it feeds into that dynamic.

Why would a member of a "problem population" have any expectation that a professor would be respectful towards them and take an interest in helping educate them?

Writing "white men suck" is not going to help the cause of racial equality and social justice.

Also glossed over his her statement that she tries to discriminate against white business owners during MLK Jr. week.

To me, it seems pretty clear that this professor harbors animosity towards white people, especially white men. Perfectly understandable given the reality of our society and what she and other black women have had to experience in it. Certainly not a threat to white men like myself.

At the same time, could she promote a learning environment that's respectful towards all students, regardless of their race and gender? I would guess not.

[seabeyond]

42. ya, i am exhausted by it also, all the fuggin' time. the reality is, there is a problem with that

demographic. if we could ONLY start down this path to actually address. get beyond the first few words, at the least (which may be the twitter issue, i do not use twitter), but geez greek. how are we suppose to dance this dance. i just said it in yet ANOTHER way, to maybe hit a lightbulb. at a certain point, we have to admit that it is the actual refusal for information from women, for any reason and no reason, that can be mustered.

if all else fails, start with the violent, vulgar, rape and death fantasies.

i have two sons. good, smart, aware, white males being raised in this shit.

love them with all my heart

have been with them to bring balance, reason, thought, on the issue of white privileged males.

damn, it is old.

and it is damn old me having to constantly say.... men do not get to shut me up one way or another.

ALL the fuckin time in life. different ways. for different reasons.

all the time.

i am on these young mens side. they are my sons and nephews. i am here for 'em. this is not easy and it is such a fucked up path we create for them.

[geek tragedy]

46. there is a problem with that demographic, but that problem is the culture in which

that demographic grows up.

the patriarchy, and racism, are something we all need to tackle together. The patriarchy is a problem for your boys, as you have said.

But, finger pointing at people, based on their surface characteristics, how does that help? To me it seems to legitimize the idea that there are fundamental differences and us vs them.

I think an educator has a heightened obligation to be inclusive and respectful--that's how this shit goes away.

[seabeyond]

50. from a non academic perspective and the redundancy of the conversation, ... we all need to step up,

with the best interest for the health of our boys.

it will result in the lives of our girls.

yet, ... ultimately help the boys.

win win win

and not so damn hard.

[Sobax]

135. What is the "problem" with that demographic?

[Number23]

142. There is a significant difference between designating a group as a "problem population" on

college campuses based on empirical evidence and designating a group a "problem population" who have been historically discriminated against in every conceivable way out of a population of 300 million people and doesn't take any of that historical and present day disadvantage into consideration.

[NCTraveler]

86. +1 nt.

[1StrongBlackMan]

98. Oh, you caught that, Huh? ...

[Sobax]

136. The most recent statistics I saw for accusations of sexual assault on campus

Was that 60% of them were against white males, which would mean they are actually underrepresented. Also remember that these are just accusations, not actual confirmed assaults. A number of them will be false.

[Number23]

145. If you think that 60% of sexual assault claims against white males makes them "underepresented" then

I can understand why I smelled something very foul and trolly about your post which was corroborated when I saw your participation in this thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026696801#post4

I mean, really. How many white men do you think there are in America, let alone on college campuses for a whopping 60% of sexual assault claims against them to make them "underrepresented?"

[alcibiades_mystery]

3. I have predictions for this thread

[Buzz Clik]

5. You're keeping you predictions a secret?

He would not be pleased.

[FrodosPet]

8. I bet he never saw THAT coming!

[JustAnotherGen]

79. In light of the thread topic - this guy wouldn't be happy either!

It's a Chappelle Show Character -

[Paul Mooney predicts the future as "Negrodamus"]

Audience Member: Negrodamus, will Arsenio Hall ever have a show again?

Negrodamus: Yes. Arsenio Hall will have a new show called "Good Morning, Black America". It will be played at noon throughout the country.

In my next life - I want to be the second coming of Paul Mooney!

[el_bryanto]

4. death to twitter

But the problem with that comment wasn't just the argument, which is fairly benign and accurate, it was the context in which it was presented. Part of that is the fault of Ms. Grundy herself and part of is the fault of the person who put her twitter quotes together - set in that context it is less a dispassionate description of a college class and more an indictment of that class.

Bryant

[gollygee]

7. kick

[NobodyHere]

10. Racist tweets are racist

[gollygee]

13. Third paragraph copied in the OP

"He deemed much of the backlash against Grundy to be based on “false equivalencies,” or the idea that her statements were as bad as white male professors commenting similarly on a traditionally disempowered group, such as black women. "

[romanic]

11. I don't like the idea

Of professors being "radical". Professors are responsible for teaching thier students relevant information regarding the subjects their teaching, not to indoctrinate these young kids. Professors (on both sides)should keep thier socio-political opinions to themselves and out of the classroom to allow thier students to develop their own opinions in student clubs or public seminars.

As for Grundy herself, she got an important lesson in saying something that could incense a group of people outside of the "bubble" known as the college campus. Students who hold similar views may also learn that the hard way once their done with college and out into the actual real world.

[gollygee]

12. She is a sociologist who teaches African American studies

She has to be "racial" and talk about race.

[hack89]

15. She doesn't have to be inflammatory and insulting. Nt

[gollygee]

16. So it's a tone argument

which is what the article says, that people of color are expected to be particularly careful with their tone, even if what they're saying is not controversial in their field of study.


(Or see Number23's reply - #9 - above.)

[hack89]

18. Any person has to be aware of tone on social media

it is the nature of the beast. It both amplifies and removes nuance. The likelihood of triggering an emotional backlash is high. We see it on DU all the time - the perpetual outraged waiting to jump down some poster's throat.

[gollygee]

19. I think

it's the job of professors to take people out of their comfort zone, and make people think.

[hack89]

21. Which makes perfect sense in the classroom.

that is what learning is about. But that is a setting with lots of face time, willing participants and structure that provides context to the teachers remarks. Dropping a short provocative tweet on a potentially large and unsuspecting audience with no context to add nuance is not educating people - it is to provoke an emotional response.

[gollygee]

22. She can tweet whatever she wants

Freedom of speech isn't just for Charlie Hebo and Pam Geller.

I think she did it to create discussion, and it's been successful. I've read several news articles about it.

[hack89]

23. Where did I say she didn't have that right?

if she is willing to live with the consequences of her comments. Something tells me, however, that she did not fully consider the potential reaction she has received.

[gollygee]

26. That's possible

Since what she said is not controversisal in the world of social scientists, she might not have realized how people outside of academia would respond. But I hope academics won't censor themselves.

[hack89]

28. Common sense and awareness of your audience are useful traits

sometimes it takes a few hard knocks to learn the lessons.

[Eleanors38]

55. Those traits are what enable good teaching.

[seabeyond]

56. i am telling you. men have been knocking me upside the head for a while now, thinking it will teach

me

and still. i do not shut up

[hack89]

59. Nor should you shut up

but you also understand and accept the consequences of speaking up.

[seabeyond]

62. the consequence. a woman dare speaks and violence, vulgarity will ensue. be forewarned, and maybe

i will learn.

ok. and i do accept the consequences and have had it all thrown my way.

you are ok with that?

[hack89]

63. I am not ok that you must suffer negative consequences for speaking out

sorry if I gave you that impression.

[seabeyond]

66. i was trying to get clarification on that. thank you. nt

[Lizzie Poppet]

32. Which is why classes aren't held via Twitter.

Calling a demographic group a "problem population" based on race and gender can have factual support. No one in possession of the data can argue otherwise (this just in: young males of any race often behave horribly). Pointing that out in 140 character snippets on social media, however, isn't instruction, it's trolling.

[gollygee]

33. It's discussion

or at least the start of discussion, and it has generated a great deal of discussion.

[mythology]

39. But how much of that discussion is useful

And how much is people yelling past each other?

I'm guessing more the latter.

[seabeyond]

41. a discussion would be excellent. the point. when SHE starts a discussion, HE's shut it down. nt

[Eleanors38]

53. "Tone" is becoming a social construct in itself; a means of diminishing the impact

of an opponent's argument.

Tone© or Tone®. I had a round one on my stereo in the 60s. A WW II Japanese cruiser was called the Tone. There was once Coppertone.

[kwassa]

132. let us not forget Tony! Toni! Tone!

[Eleanors38]

133. I forgot after becoming ______ deaf.

[romanic]

24. I didn't say "racial"

I said "radical". Her tweets would be deemed radical by many outside of a select few academic circles.

[gollygee]

25. Ah I must need to get my glasses checked

But a couple of things - what she said isn't actuall radical. It's established and non-controversial among social scientists, as explained in the article. And even then, I think it's good for professors to challenge people and make them thing. Milquetoast professors don't teach much. They should be a bit radical.

[romanic]

27. I respectfully disagree.

Saying a demographic of people is a "problem" doesn't seem to challenge anybody to think different, let alone that actual demographic to make them "think". And let's be honest, "social scientists" represent a small tiny little portion in society itself. That was one of the points in the article, college itself is a "bubble" separated from the rest of the world.

[gollygee]

29. The way I read that tweet

which was "Why is white America so reluctant to identify white college males as a problem population"

recognizing that we bring a bit of ourselves into how we read things, is that it sounded to me like she was comparing how African American young men are identified by white America as a problem population, yet she works on a college campus where there are problems with sexual assualts and binge drinking, yet white America doesn't have similar criticisms of white college men that they have of similarly-aged African American men. The fact that young black men are being killed, and are being seen as "thugs" regardless of level of criminal activity because of how they're viewed as a group, has been in the news a lot. I took her comments as being written within that context.

[geek tragedy]

35. that makes sense. but as a general rule if you have to clarify a comment

wherein you disparage an entire demographic group, you've made a really profound mistake, especially if you're an educator whose job mandates respectful and inclusive behavior towards that group.

[gollygee]

37. Well

It's twitter, so there isn't space for clarification.

Also, depending on what was trending on Twitter that day, it might have been really obvious when the Tweet actually happened. Tweets happen in the moment. They aren't really meant to be collected and read out of context at another time.

[geek tragedy]

38. which is why it's so lethal to politicians nt

[gollygee]

45. she isn't a politician. nt

[geek tragedy]

47. no, but she is an educator. no doubt that people who put together her tweets

were looking to collect a scalp, but twitter is a form of publication just like academic journals are, just like news stories and magazine articles are.

[gollygee]

48. it isn't anything like an academic journal.

That's just silly.

[geek tragedy]

49. it's publication of viewpoints.

it's a different format, but it's publication

[seabeyond]

51. it is making excuses for fuckin' stupid, abusive, ignorant reactions. that simple.

it was a fuckin game to shut her up.

this one, one may say, .... she should have said.

that is not the point. there is alwyas this fuckin sophmoric reaction.

and looking and what and how she said it, when it is fact, and ANY one can put a second of thought into this and know exactly what she is saying

purposeful blindness to lash out/shut up

[geek tragedy]

60. honestly, sea, you know we agree on just about everything

But you and I are reading her stuff very differently.

I mean, take this statement:

Every MLK week I commit myself to not spending a dime in white-owned businesses. And every year I find it nearly impossible."

I mean, really? That's not a criticism of structural racism. It's someone saying they discriminate based on race, during MLK week.


Cold hard fact that racism and patriarchy won't go away unless the 'problem populations' buy into making them go away. yeah, they should know better, but they don't, so you gotta treat them like human beings and get them to listen. If it's diatribes instead of dialogue, well then this shit just stays the same.

I listen to you, and to all of the feminist, African-American posters here on race and patriarchy.

Someone like this prof? Nope, tuning her out, I don't care what she has to say, just as she has no interest in people like me learning from what she has to say. Someone is gonna write me off as a human being because of what I was born as, then there's a mighty big pile of shits I will not give regarding what they have to say about folks like me. She's free to dislike white people and especially white men--heck it's more than understandable given reality of society. But, that still means she does not get through my filter.

[seabeyond]

64. ONE week a year, she is making a statement with her $ earned, and you are on her ass? hey. i do

it regularly.

you know, toward sexist companies. women hating companies.

one week a year she is bringing awareness to us, the power and control of white over all others, thru the $.

and you have a problem with the statement.

this is my point, and yours, too. and yes. even on this, we agree. we are seeing it so differently

so. let me ask. are you seeing it thru white, and/or male eyes?

cause i know often, the world view is man, when i shift and look thru my woman eyes, the view is different.

i now define to my boys. that comment, is thru male view. the only way i laugh at that joke, is if i look at it from YOUR eyes. cause from a womans eye, there is no humor in it.

i already know you and i see differently on some thoughts. and i am cool, cause you make me think, and help me to define.

so thank you always.

[geek tragedy]

71. I can only see the world through my own eyes. Even when I try to put myself in someone else's

point of view, I'm still seeing things with my own eyes, just doing so while imagining how they would see it.

I can't know.

Interesting that you point out that you don't give your money to sexist, woman-hating companies.

She's saying that she's doing it just based on the color of the business owner. Not how those businesses respect the community, or treat their employees, or how responsibly they source their goods.

Most corporations have no color. Is Citibank less racist because its biggest shareholder is an Arab than the local hardware store owner?

Racism is behavior, not the color of one's skin.

Also, she's complaining about most businesses being white owned in non-diverse places like Ann Arbor or Boston? Like complaining that all the businesses in Mexico City are owned by Latinos.

[seabeyond]

73. let me address the beginning. this is the point. the worlds story has been told only thru mens eyes.

we are so conditioned to see it only thru mens eyes. it took fuckin years, decades, almost a lifetime, to realize i needed to look thru my eyes. a womans. not mans eyes.

so, men say they cannot see thru any other eyes. but most all of us see only thru mens. and that is the real issue. problem. why so many women support patriarchy. if we are so conditioned to see our lives, from a mans view? then why is the reverse not possible.

[geek tragedy]

74. that's just it, we lack any frame of reference.

Women are taught to see the world through men's eyes, but then they have their own experiences and their own true eyes. They can be bi-visual

We're taught to see the world the same way we actually see it. So, there's nothing in our experience or our enculturation that gives us the additional perspective.

So, we can try, but at the end of the day, we are only imagining what things would look like through other eyes.

[seabeyond]

76. we are forced to see bivisual, and that is a good term. it is time, men start challenging themselves

to do that also.

or else, we will continue as we are going.

my niece, who has been so abused, all her life. is now posting for the "good" man thru religion. do you KNOW how much i want to just shake her and tell her how religion that she is demanding of men, is what has been abusing her for two and a half decades?

it is literally crazy to me.

[geek tragedy]

78. thing is, I don't know that a person can choose to be bi-visual or

to challenge themselves to be bi-visual.

I don't see it as a choice, really. We can be open-minded, we can try to be as fair as possible, we can try to imagine how others are seeing it.

But, we just don't know the way you do. Because it is a choice for us.

[seabeyond]

80. i call bullshit on this daily. my kids are much better doing it with black and gays. not so well

with women. they are good. but... not so good, too.

when the comic does that rape joke, is your mind flashing, hmmmmm. how would a women hear this.

it really is not hard.

and women have to go thru the same process. cause. the reality. we grow up see from mens view.

i was 20 and a lightbulb went off. i really saw myself BELOW man. i had normal upbringing, late 70's early 80's. and the culture dictated i see my life from mans eye.

i had to learn, too

[seabeyond]

81. i could not/would not use woman. girl, lady. cause we do not use woman, or just starting.

cause woman is adult. adult means old. god knows women are not allowed to be adult, old or she is not sexual or sexy.

ya know

simple things i had to learn.

the more i realized, the easier it became

[seabeyond]

82. fuck. i use to be one of the nice ones, iwth a nice tone. see what you all did to me?

now i am just playing with you

jumping off du

[seabeyond]

65. and i may be seeing this wrong. i know i saw a 'comic' relief yesterday about cops beating black

youth.

not even a chuckle.

my reaction to it was such, i have to ask, am i seeing this wrong.

[geek tragedy]

67. you saw it as you saw it, no right or wrong nt

[Eleanors38]

61. So far the professor reveals a bad temper for teaching. I don't mind radical profs...

had a few in my college days. But you must construct and foster a good learning environment. She hasn't.

I know very little about Twitter, but I am continuously amazed how "those in the social media know" keep stepping in it. So she started a discussion. That approach is academic "streaking", and not a very profound one. It is also a method being rapidly cheapened, since every Tom, Dick, and Harriet is doing it. I guess it is a consequent result of the Celebrity Culture overtaking other forms of communication and institutions.

[gollygee]

75. We don't know how she is in the classroom

She got upset with someone one time that we are aware of on Facebook. But everyone loses their temper sometimes. A problem African American women have is that if they are seen to lose their temper, they get seen through the "angry black woman" stereotype. She doesn't necessarily have a worse temper than the average professor.

[Eleanors38]

85. Her temper still seems bad. I don't much care about occasional demonstrated anger.

While any teacher is advised to keep their outbursts to a minimum, the stuff floated out on Facebook/Twitter has become in our culture the stuff of the "author" and not necessarily an angry remark or two.

Old mass media has lost its legitimizing power, and new media searches for a vacuum.

Is she still employed at BU? I think she might benefit from a classroom of diligent, enthusiastic students who have a different take on things.

[gollygee]

87. The only thing I've seen that would show a bad temper

is one thing she said on Facebook. I don't see every display of anger the same way. "Temper" to me is going too far. There are times where anger is justified. I don't care if it's on social media or where, one display of her flaring up and going to far is not enough to assume her temper is so bad she shouldn't teach.

[seabeyond]

30. interesting. reminds me of young women in the field told to put a mans name on paper before

presenting it

or, the way women are so often addressed, simply for speaking.

every one of these experiences that get called out, out loud, brings more awareness.

keep on, keeping on.

[1939]

36. Not limited to white male students

If Prof Grundy thinks that binge drinking and sexual assaults are limited to white male college students, she never went to a black fraternity party as an undergraduate. Binge drinking and sexual assaults are common to most 18-24 year old men of any race or nationality..

[Eleanors38]

68. The narrative of "whites" doing X, Y, and Z is a safer sell...

You are right: Every one does it, but once you indulge the safer narrative, then you can construct a hierarchy of pain, even indifference, to the same transgressions when they don't fit the mold, but are close enough. Consider the discussion further down this thread. I really hope she didn't say "Go cry somewhere."

[seabeyond]

69. there is nothing safe in challenging white, hetero, (christian), man. nothing. what an absurd

statement and facts certainly does not play out in the manner. especially if you are woman. especially if you are a black woman.

[Eleanors38]

72. It is a safer narrative. The smart ones know how to use it.

I mean, she's in a Boston University, not Birmingham.

[Sobax]

77. The women could out-compete the men when it comes to binge drinking these days

[1StrongBlackMan]

102. Have you been to a Black fraternity party? ...

I've been to several. I do not recall ever seeing a keg.

[seabeyond]

115. cause standards is set way higher for them? academicaly and to be taken seriously? nt

[1939]

134. When i was working on my MS degree

at a "traditionally black" college (Virginia State), malt liquor and wine appeared to be the beverages of choice. though I was a bit older than the undergrads and lived off campus. My army colleagues from Hampton, North Carolina A&T, and Morgan State shared a lot of war stories about undergrad life, so I don't think there is that much difference between white and black undergrads..

[B2G]

40. She's evidently not too fond of white rape survivors either.

'Go cry somewhere': Hateful words of black Boston University professor to a white rape survivor written on Facebook three months before she claimed white men are 'THE problem for America's colleges'


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

[gollygee]

43. Daily Mail

It looks like she was writing about white privilege and someone said that she had not benefited from white privilege because she was a rape survivor. That apparently led to an angry exchange between them. But of course this is the Daily Mail, so the article says she doesn't like white rape survivors in general, because of course an angry exchange with one white privilege denying rape survivor over her denial of white privilege equals dislike of all white rape survivors. /sarcasm

[B2G]

44. Whatever. She was less than sensitive no matter the context.

This woman has no business being in a classroom.

[seabeyond]

52. she was less sensitive to the fuckwad being insensitive? OMG and you do not see the privilege,

entitlement, hypocrisy and affirmation of what is being discussed?

priceless....

[B2G]

57. What 'fuckwad' are you referring to?

The rape survivor? What makes her a fuckwad?

[seabeyond]

58. it is a confusing story. it is used to manipulate. my point is beyond the particulars.

which it appears i did not read it correctly. so, i can not really delete, because i stand with my point, understanding i read gollygee's post incorrectly.

[Eleanors38]

70. First we had the Twinkie Defense. Now we have the Twitter Defense!

Confusion and gross insult, all wrapped into one. And fast too.

[seabeyond]

54. so first i sat listening to this conversation. processing. and i am bottomling, she was not "nice"

enough. she often is not nice enough.

some fuckwad throse a jab at her being raped, and she just did not consider his feelings in her reply. really? that?

honey/vinager
head bowed, eyes down (dont dare make eye contact, might look like confidence)
passive/timid
may i speak now, sir?

am i wrong?

[B2G]

83. Perhaps if i understood what you are trying to get at here...

"some fuckwad throse a jab at her being raped, and she just did not consider his feelings in her reply"

WTF does that even mean?

[gollygee]

84. It sounds like she misunderstood what happened

Dr. Grundy (is she a Dr? She's a professor but not all are.) had a Facebook post about white privilege. A white woman said she hadn't benefitted from white privilege because she was a rape victim. The two had what looks like a nasty Facebook argument.

Anyway, I think Sea though that the professor was a rape victim, and that someone elsehad said "Go cry about it" to her. But no, it's the professor who said that. And nobody is perfect. I'm comfortable recognizing that Dr. Grundy was insensitive on Facebook, but still thinking her tweets were OK. I also don't know how nasty the other woman in the Facebook war was. The Daily Mail isn't necessarily going to give a balanced picture of what happened.

[B2G]

88. The only 'nasty' I saw was from Grundy. nt

[gollygee]

89. From the Daily Mail

which as I said wouldn't necessarily give a balanced picture. It's the Daily Mail.

[B2G]

90. Screen prints don't lie.

I think this lady has issues. You are free to disagree.

[gollygee]

91. It shows a cut-out section of a larger conversation

All you know is what you've been shown. And that article was obviously a hit piece. It wasn't balanced.

[B2G]

92. That's because Ms. Grundy deleted it.

Go figure.

Based on her Tweets and now this, it surprises me not at all. Like I said, feel free to draw a different conclusion, but I think I have ample evidence to form my opinion here.

[gollygee]

93. If they have a screen capture, they could have shown more of the conversation.

But whatever.

[B2G]

95. Race trumps all with people like her

If you're not a minority, you can't possibly be a victim.

Classic case of tunnel vision due to an agenda.

[gollygee]

96. You don't know her

Disgusting assumptions.

[B2G]

111. Neither do you. nt

[gollygee]

113. I haven't made assumptions about her

In fact, what I've done is to not assume and question the narrative.

If you're not a minority, you can't possibly be a victim.

Classic case of tunnel vision due to an agenda.

That is a HUGE assumption. You assume negative intent and some agenda without knowing her. All I've done is give her some level of benefit of the doubt. Innocent until proven guilty.

[B2G]

122. I am basing my judgement by her own words

Do you really think she doesn't have an agenda?

My daughter, who minored in women's studies, said she'd never sign up for one of her classes.

[romanic]

141. Forget it.

I've learned that some on here worship academics and professors like Demi-Gods who can never be wrong.

Believe me i don't think Grundy is going to be hurt because someone is making judgment on words she posted for the entire internet to scrutinize.

[1StrongBlackMan]

97. Wow ...

Read the comments after the article. It's DU re-visited!

Why is it assumed that when a white person disagrees with the potus that they must be a racist?

Why is it when non-whites dress in 'white-face' it is considered freedom of expression, but when whites dress in 'black-face' they are considered a racist?

Why were the young men at OU called racists for singing a song when black leaders call whites 'honky', 'hymie', etc. are heralded for their courage?

It is assumed she is a racist based on her statements. If we cannot define her as a racist based on her statements why are white people consistently called racists for making similar statements?

You don't get to have it both ways .... either she made racist statements which makes her a racist or her thoughts/statements cannot be used to define her as a racist .... but that means EVERY individual must be provided the same.


willrich354 > Joseph Colorado • 5 days ago

Racism= Power + Prejudice. This is exactly the problem the article and commentators are highlighting: that often the precise language or jargon in academia doesn't translate perfectly to non-academic audiences. Non-whites don't have the same social, political, or economic power writ-large to impose any negative views of whites on society. On the other hand white people have 500+ year old social, political, and economic systems that allow their prejudices to be carried out.

We can call her comments prejudice perhaps, but they don't have the same social power that a white male's voice may have if he said the inverse of her statement. Her tone or statement may be wrong but it is qualitatively different than the OU men you mentioned.


AngusMcP > willrich354 • 5 days ago

I disagree. While racism can be structural, it can also be individual. And certainly as a tenure-track professor, Grundy has a lot more power than some random undergraduates at a midwestern cow college.


willrich354 > AngusMcP • 4 days ago

Your disagreement doesn't make it less true. Individual action only matters within the social/structural context that it happens in. There is copious amounts of research that details the acute lack of power that scholars of color, especially black women/queer folk, have in the academy in relation to their "random undergrads" because academic institutions tend to uphold these students' views when conflict arises (ooo see, there's power again).


AssociateProfessor > willrich354 • 5 days ago

Again with the spurious definition of "racism". I reject the definition of racism as prejudice only with power. That definition is created whole-cloth to clothe the racist speech of certain groups with a robe of respectability, and is itself a racist double standard.


willrich354 > AssociateProfessor • 4 days ago

Spurious? As I stated to the person above, your rejection doesn't make the definition of the concept any less true. The white (also themselves racist) sociologists/anthropologists who coined the term in the early 20th century explicitly created it to describe the systematic(!), wide-reaching(!) abuse of Jewish people in Europe and America. The -ism at the end of the world implies that it is an system or state of being similar to capitalism, sexism, fascism. Fascism didn't work both ways, neither does sexism, they primarily benefited one class of people. So sorry It's not black people's/ black academics' fault that you haven't read about the history of the term to know what it means. Now go tell a physicists that you reject their definition of an electron or gravity.

Sounds really familiar!

[Sobax]

99. I know this point comes up a lot

But sociologists and anthropologists don't have some special kind of mandate to redefine the words we all already use.

[gollygee]

100. The way words are used by white men

because from my understanding, people of color have always used the word "racism" this way. One of the ways racism is embedded in our culture is in how words are used. White people, and largely white men, write dictionaries. So white men get to control the language. I rejet that.

[Sobax]

103. That's your right, I guess

The rest of us will just continue using the word in the correct manner. There's no reason why anyone should accept your attempts to control the language.

[gollygee]

104. "Correct" according to white men

I reject that as well.

Sociologists are better authorities on a word used to describe a social construct than you are. And dictionaries only describe how words are used (mainly by white men.) They don't say what is "correct." If people (and mainly white men) start using a word differently, the dictionary will change the definiton to match how they are using it, with no concern over what is "correct."

[Sobax]

107. Why would you reject how white men use words

But accept how people of color use them?

How do you objectively decide which the "correct" version is?

[gollygee]

110. People affected by racism have a better understanding of it than we do

Part of privilege is not seeing and understanding racism. If you are being actively hurt by something, you have to see it. So yes I give their definition weight over that of white men.

But in this case, I am preferring the way sociologists use the term since this is an area of their study and expertise. And white male sociologists use the term this way too.

[Sobax]

112. That's a bit circular

How can you know who is being affected by racism before you've even explained how and why you've defined it?

[gollygee]

114. If you can't figure out who is affected by racism

then you need to go back to school or read some books or something.

[Sobax]

117. Before I know who is affected by racism

I need to know whether to use the white man definition or the people of color definition of racism, and I need to know why one is more "correct" than the other.

[gollygee]

118. Or you need to be a part of this society

and see what is happening around you.

[1StrongBlackMan]

121. I was about to request that you edit your remarks ...

Then, I read this:

But in this case, I am preferring the way sociologists use the term since this is an area of their study and expertise. And white male sociologists use the term this way too.

So it is not how Black folks use/understand the word/phenomena; but, rather, how academics use/understand the word/phenomena.

[gollygee]

123. Yeah and he ignored that paragrah.

[1StrongBlackMan]

125. I think a lot is being ignored. n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

119. Perhaps, by defaulting to the langauge used by the Academics that study the phenomena? n/t

[Sobax]

120. Why though? As I've said, they have no special mandate or authority

[1StrongBlackMan]

124. And I have already said ...

Why adopt the language of climatologist with respect to climate change ... they just study and report on their observations for a living. Whether the lay-person chooses to up-date their use of language to reflect the language of the academics is merely a matter of choosing enlightenment over ignorance.

[Sobax]

126. Yes, why? If a word is already defined and in common usage

I'm not going to change how I use it. It doesn't matter what they do for a living or how many letters they have after their name. It doesn't give them the right to manipulate our language.

[1StrongBlackMan]

127. So ignorance it is.

[Sobax]

128. Ignorance of what?

After speaking to some of these social scientists, it's patently obvious to me that they know about as much about the subject as I do.

Just because I don't accept their manipulation of my language, it doesn't make me ignorant.

[1StrongBlackMan]

129. Please list your peer-reviewed research on the subject of racism. Thanks.

[Sobax]

130. After reading some of the peer-reviewed research on the subject

It's not something I'd waste time doing myself, because it's not worth the paper it's written on. We're not discussing nuclear physics here.

[1StrongBlackMan]

131. True, we are just discussing MY experience in this world. No worries ...

Now. Excuse me while I check my emails. I am concerned that Stephen Hawking has yet to respond to my discussion of theoretical physics ... after all, I have read a comic book or two, AND I have seen every episode of The Big Bang Theory!

[1StrongBlackMan]

106. And theree's no reason to accept climatologists attempts to control the language ...

with respect to climate change ... Right?

[Sobax]

108. No, absolutely not

They don't have a special mandate to redefine words either. If they want to use their own terminology within their own field then that's their business, but they shouldn't expect the general public to go along with that.

[1StrongBlackMan]

116. Yeah? Okay. n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

105. Yeah ... They, really do ... Well, not a "special mandate", as the refining of terms ...

to more accurately define the phenomena is reserved to ALL scientists.

[gollygee]

101. Yes it does sound familiar

but people are surprised when we don't assume every member of the Democratic Party cares about social justice issues.

[ismnotwasm]

109. Sure does

Damn

[LittleBlue]

137. They sabotaged her review score on Rate My Professor

http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=2012546

Rmp erased them and locked her page. The moment she starts teaching she'll get straight zeros. Any prospective student who googled her will see this and the hundreds of articles about her opinions. I wonder how many people will take her classes after word spreads around campus.

Her position is probably untenable.

[gollygee]

138. She teaches African American studies

Students taking her courses won't probably be surprised by this. I think she'll be fine.