Results 1 to 10 of 10
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
-
12-21-2006, 12:34 AM #1
Washington Professor hurls racist slurs at white student
http://volokh.com/posts/1166639678.shtml -[
Eugene Volokh, December 20, 2006 at 1:34pm]
Washington State University Professor Calls Student "White Shitbag" at Demonstration:
The WSU investigation report is here. The College Republicans organized an anti-illegal-immigration event, featuring a "24-foot, chain-link, cyclone fence, later established as a representation of a 'Wall of Immigration.'" Professor John Streamas showed up, got into an argument with Dan Ryder, a College Republicans member, and in the process called him a "white shitbag."
Ryder eventually filed a complaint alleging that Streamas subjected him to discriminatory harassment and intimidation, in violation of a university policy. The WSU report held that Prof. Streamas's insult didn't violate the policy, but noneteless condemned Prof. Streamas for "immature, intellectual unsophistiated and thoughtless conduct unbecoming any WSU employee and a member of the WSU faculty, in particular." The university will apparently officially reprimand Prof. Streamas.
It seems to me that Prof. Streamas's statement indeed shouldn't be a fireable offense. Despite the First Amendment and academic freedom protections that professors have, I think a university could indeed sanction in various ways one-to-one personal insults said by professors to students, especially when they fall within the constitutional category of "fighting words" (words that are likely to start a fight), which "shitbag" likely does. But to do that, I think the university ought to have a policy that's far clearer than the one at issue here; and there should any event be some accommodation for occasional statements made in anger — especially when the speaker promptly apologizes when called on this, as Streamas did here, when berated by Mr. Ryder for the insult. When people get impassioned, they sometimes say things that they shouldn't say, and while we expect better from professors, making each such statement (even an insulting one) into a firing offense (or, when said by students, into a dismissable offense) would go too far to deter extemporaneous debates in which people realize they may go over the line.
I agree that we also have to be attentive to students' academic freedom, and certain speech by professors — most obviously, threats of academic retaliation — can undermine students' freedom. But here the statement was outside class; Prof. Streamas wasn't one of Ryder's professors; and while Mr. Ryder was rightly offended by the statement, I don't think he could have reasonably interpreted it as a threat of either retaliation or of violence (except insofar as all heated condemnation, including condemnation that's much more substantive than this, may carry some vague and indirect implicit threat of retaliation).
Nonetheless, it is pretty sad that this incident happened, and it says some pretty bad things about Prof. Streamas and others like him. First, the report tells us that Prof. Streamas "insists that he did not utter the phrase as an expression of racism, in part, because he argues that a person of color cannot be racist, by definition, because racism also defines a power differential that is not usually present when a person or color is speaking." Yeah, right. He and others are redefining the term "racism" in a way that's pretty far removed from its normal meaning — which is racial hostility — so as to give themselves a rhetorical break from the rules they're imposing on others. And on top of that, he's applying even his revised definition in a disingenuous way: Whatever may be "usually" so, there surely is a "power differential" between a professor of whatever race and a student of whatever race.
Second, "In reply to a [university Center for Human Rights] request for a meeting, [Prof. Streamas] left an unsolicited voicemail message, which stated, in relevant part,"
The fence was a racist attack upon us. And ... I think that we need to talk about that .... Whatever I said to one person is not equal to whatever that fence did to hundreds of people, attacking us personally and communally.... Many, many people have been hurt. I don't care about the hurt feelings of one white person; I care about the hurt feelings of many, many people of color and immigrants who were offended by that fence....
Well, yes, the two are not equal. The fence and the demonstration related to it is an attempt to participate in a debate about illegal immigration. Some might think that the attempts to stem illegal immigration are inherently racist; others might not; but what's important for a university is that illegal immigration and the responses to it are a substantive issue that requires substantive discussion.
That people are "offended" by the discussion, or by the symbols of the discussion, is no reason not to have the discussion. (I suppose one could argue that the fence is a nonsubstantive symbol that doesn't add much to the discussion, but I take it that any "people of color and immigrants who were offended" would have been equally offended by substantive denunciations of illegal immigration as much as they would be by a fence.) And this is especially so with a university: A university can't function effectively if people are deterred from raising substantive arguments because some people (even "many people of color and immigrants") are offended.
On the other hand, calling a student a "white shitbag" is not an attempt to participate in a debate, or to foster a debate. It's namecalling that's pretty clearly intended to insult, and likely to have no effect but insulting. That sort of offensiveness — deliberate nonsubstantive insult, rather than an expression of ideas (good or bad) — undermines rather than advancing the mission of the university, especially when it's a professor who's doing the talking.
Finally, how can a university fulfill its mission if its faculty deny that there is even a substantive debate to be had, on an issue that seems much in need of a substantive debate? Prof. Streamas's view is that "The fence is no different than a Confederate flag or a swastika." Than a swastika? Taking the view that immigration laws ought to be enforced, and that some limits on immigration are proper, is tantamount to endorsing the killing of Jews and an explicit ideology of racial superiority?
There's an important debate to be had about the proper immigration policy for our nation (a nation to which I suspect hundreds of millions would want to come, if the borders were completely opened). People of all races have different views on the subject. I unfortunately couldn't find any recent polls on immigration broken down by race, but a 1996 poll (the most recent one I could find) reported that roughly identical numbers — 86% to 90% — of black, Asian, and white respondents took the view that Clinton should in his second term "crack down on illegal immigration." (Warning: Asian numbers have a very high margin of error, and black numbers have a relatively high one.) In 1994, the Voter News Service poll reported that California's anti-illegal-immigrant Prop. 187 was supported by 64% of white voters, 57% of Asians, 56% of blacks, and 31% of Hispanics. (Same warning as above, though somewhat less so.) The L.A. Times reported less support by nonwhites, but still substantial support — 63% among whites, 47% among Asians and blacks, and 23% among Hispanics.
This is an issue that people, especially scholars who are interested in such questions, should address seriously and thoughtfully. Yet my sense is that there's an atmosphere in many university departments, especially ones that are ideologically monolithic and thus tend towards being echo chambers, that professors react to these questions with vitriol rather than with thoughtfulness. That surely seems to be so of Prof. Streamas.Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)
-
12-21-2006, 12:36 AM #2
- Join Date
- Nov 2006
- Location
- TEXAS - The Lone Star State
- Posts
- 16,941
the college kid in question was on hannity and colmes about three weeks ago in regard to this same story
-
12-21-2006, 01:00 AM #3The fence was a racist attack upon us. And ... I think that we need to talk about that .... Whatever I said to one person is not equal to whatever that fence did to hundreds of people, attacking us personally and communally.... Many, many people have been hurt. I don't care about the hurt feelings of one white person; I care about the hurt feelings of many, many people of color and immigrants who were offended by that fence....We are NOT a nation of immigrants!
-
12-21-2006, 02:14 AM #4
What a racist pig, it is now time for all white people to start suing everyone who hurls racial slurs at them. I am so sick of this attitude that racism is ok if it is perpetrated by one of any color against a white man or woman because of course the whites deserve any and all racial slurs made against them. This student should have reported this professor to the police for hate speech, jnot that it would have went anywhere, it is just time to stop this crap.
Build the dam fence post haste!
-
12-21-2006, 05:58 PM #5
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
- Posts
- 1,207
Originally Posted by jamesw62
And as a Black American myself, I have to agree, if the roles were reversed, and a White Professor spoke to a Black student or a group of Blacks in this manner, he'd be forced to resign, and made to apologize.
Racist remarks are demeaning and painful no matter who is on the recieving end of them.
-
12-21-2006, 06:14 PM #6
ConcernedCitizen, God bless you for the words you have said, not many in our society today will admit what you just said. I wish on Christmas morning we could all wake up being miracuously color blind to each others skin color, yet still be able to enjoy the beautiful colors god has placed in our world for us to enjoy.I wonder if that would take away all racial barriers in our world and make us all equal as we are suppose to be, or if we would find some other way in which to separate ourselves from each other Is there a way we can somehow rise above our natural hateful attitudes to each other or are we just stuck with ourselves?
Build the dam fence post haste!
-
12-21-2006, 07:09 PM #7
- Join Date
- Jan 1970
- Location
- North Carolina
- Posts
- 571
This link was in the blog. Interesting ...
http://libarts.wsu.edu/ces/john_streamas.php
-
12-21-2006, 07:39 PM #8Streamas teaches introductory Ethnic Studies and Asian Pacific American Studies as well as Asian Pacific American literature, culture and power, theories of race and ethnicity, and Asian Pacific American women. He hopes to develop courses in race and war, race and geography, race and poverty, and race and university policy.
-
12-21-2006, 07:41 PM #9
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Location
- Texas
- Posts
- 3,663
I think that Streamas and Michael Richards should fight to the death in a celebrity deathmatch.
-
12-21-2006, 11:37 PM #10Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost
We should be so lucky!Build the dam fence post haste!
Biden Overwhelms Immigration Courts with Over 3.5 Million Cases...
05-07-2024, 07:50 PM in illegal immigration News Stories & Reports