The Chronicle of Higher Education is pretty much the journal to be read within academia. Yesterday, I happened to catch a disturbing story while watching John Stossel's show on Fox. His guest was a writer by the name of Naomi Schaefer Riley, who had been a contributing writer for the Chronicle-until she recently wrote an article criticizing black studies departments. The firing was in reaction to a petition by some 6,500 academics and other thought police demanding she be canned. First, let me begin with the Huffington Post article on the story, which pretty much supports the firing.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/08/naomi-schaefer-riley-blog_n_1500619.html
Here is how The Blaze sees it.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/higher-education-blogger-fired-for-criticizing-african-american-students/
Of course, I must assume that the Huffpo, while ignoring the obvious irony of supporting a firing for writing the "wrong thing", was aware that any claims of "racism" leveled against Riley (who is white) would ring hollow since her husband, Jason Riley, a conservative writer for the Wall Street Journal, is black. Stossel made dramatic use of that fact on his show when after discussing with Mrs Riley the accusations of racism thrown her way, introduced Jason to the audience.
As for the charges that she did not read a certain number of dissertations cover to cover, that doesn't hold water either. First of all, she is not tasked with grading them and awarding a PhD to anyone. Secondly, dissertations can run into the hundreds of pages. Riley is a blogger and should not be expected to devote days and weeks to reading documents to support her overall opinion that ethnic studies are not a valid academic discipline-or at least one that would lead to success in the real world. I have expressed that opinion in the past, and it is hardly the result of having read a bunch of dissertations.
The real issue is how the JHE could get rid of someone merely for expressing an opinion that runs counter to the politically-correct doctrines. If you really believe that American academia represents a true diversity of opinions, you are living in Dreamland. The truth is, sadly, that the concept of diversity does not include diversity of opinion.
This is a very sensitive issue and one that can be blown out of the proportion by the Leftists, who want to make political theatre of anything that smacks of racism, even though racism is not part of the arguement.
ReplyDeleteFirst, Naomi Schaefr Riley should have approached the issue from another point of view.
Second, she should have brought out concern for the Ph.D. candidates in the job market.
On the first point, if Riley is going to bring dissertstions to the table and provide critique, she should have read them and report on the research cited in the documents and the methodology used to make conclusions. This is an accurate statement about the scholarship and throws the racist claim out of the window.
On the second point, Riley could have made herself look like the hero by pointing to the statistics on hirability of "Black Studies" students when they get their Ph.D. She would look like a hero trying to help out those students, who may have massive student loans.
In conclusion, the Leftists could not argue their points, successfully, if her critique is on APA style and scholarship arguements, in additon to wanting to help the grad students get jobs. She was brave to bring out the points, but should have been more careful in the presentation of her blog. I am sorry she lost her job.
Squid