Author Naomi Schaefer Riley was an ornament to the Chronicle of Higher Education’s Brainstorm blog where she provided a keen dissenting voice pointing out the follies of modern academia. Riley, the author of the brilliant The Faculty Lounges … And Other Reasons Why You Won’t Get the College Education You Pay For, is a critic of the liberal orthodoxies of the American campus. She has earned the enmity of the sector’s establishment by pointing out the con games played by universities that have profited from the creation of sham disciplines and the way college faculties have insulated themselves by focusing largely on the publication of arcane academic papers filled with jargon that makes no sense to anyone outside of their narrow fields.
Having such a voice of reason at a publication like the Chronicle–which caters to the residents of those faculty lounges about which Riley has written–was an important and perhaps daring decision on the part of its editors. But apparently there is a limit to their willingness to allow anyone to speak the truth about the academic world. After Riley wrote a post pointing out the absurdity at the heart of a recent Chronicle feature that highlighted the “young guns” at Black Studies departments around the nation, the publication says “thousands” of its readers protested. Rather than stand by their writer, the Chronicle caved to criticism in the most abject manner possible. In a craven note to its readers, editor Liz McMillen claimed Riley’s post “did not meet the Chronicle’s basic editorial standards for reporting and fairness in opinion articles” and fired her. In shamefully throwing Riley under the bus, the Chronicle has not only done her an injustice. It has undermined, perhaps fatally, its credibility as a journal of thought as well as making it clear it will no longer countenance any dissent from academia’s wisdom on race and gender studies.
McMillen’s note is doubly offensive because its characterization of Riley’s post is incorrect, and because she also chose to grovel to the mob by apologizing for a previous editor’s note in which she invited readers to debate the author’s opinion. Though she now says her previous note was wrong to “elevate Riley’s post to the level of informed opinion,” the only thing that is clear from reading her obsequious apology is that in allowing Riley’s critics to dictate editorial policy, she has debased the Chronicle and herself to a point where neither can be taken seriously.
In examining this controversy, it must be asserted from the outset that nothing Riley wrote was offensive or lacking in civility, as McMillen charged. Riley’s offense was not one of tone or fact but rather in her willingness to say Black Studies is an academic discipline rooted in and consumed by the politics of victimization with little scholarly value.
Riley pointed out something that was obvious to any objective reader of the Chronicle’s paean to those coming in this field: their dissertation topics are trivial and motivated solely by what she aptly calls “left-wing victimization claptrap” in which racism is the answer to every conceivable question.
The dissertations she mentioned speak volumes about the low level of discourse that passes for academic achievement in this field. That topics such as black midwives being left out of natural birth literature, the notion that the promotion of single family homes is racist and the branding of black conservatives as opponents of civil rights are the work of the best and brightest in black studies tell us all we need to know about why Riley is right about the need to eliminate this form of academic fraud.
In saying this, Riley was blunt but transgressed no rules of journalism other than the need not to offend powerful constituencies. But for those devoted to the promotion of this sector of academia, for Riley to have pointed out that the emperor has no clothes is an unforgivable offense that must be punished by branding her as a racist who must be banished from the pages of the magazine. The only “standard” that Riley did not live up to in this post was the obligation to say what many on the left want to hear. Contrary to McMillen, the betrayal here was not on the part of the Chronicle for having published Riley, but in firing her in order to appease an unreasoning pack of academic jackals howling for the blood of anyone with the temerity to point out their shortcomings.
It is painful to watch a respected publication like the Chronicle descend to this level of groupthink. However, this episode does illustrate how out of touch with reality its editors and many of its readers are. The defenestration of Naomi Schaefer Riley only makes plain the depths to which those determined to silence dissent against academic orthodoxy will sink.
A fine example of political correctness run amuck.
Heh. n nCheck out the lionizing of Tony Judt at the Chronicle for Higher Education. n nCan't wait for the Higher Education bubble to burst. n nElizabeth Warren was just the tip of the cheekbone.
Yet more evidence, as if more were needed, that the American campus has become, in Abigail Thernstrom’s apt description, “islands of repression in a sea of freedom.”
There's been a litmus test to teaching non-hard sciences at the university levels for years and years. Attacking the most sacred shibboleth of African American Studies is simply asking to be fired.
One of her fellow bloggers is a professor of English AND "feminist theory" who wrote a piece of doggerel about her that is insulting and, not surpisingly, egocentric. I bet she had a few words for McMillen. What a childish and picayune thing to do.
The only surprising thing here was Commentary's expecting credibility from the Chronicle. n nAnd the thorough collapse of the corrupt "black studies" department at Chapel Hill just proves Riley's point all the more clearly
yea, and Elizabeth Warren is the biggest dirtbag of all time, but you probably support her lying arse.
It's telling that Commentary claims Riley "broke no rules of journalism." Riley herself said she slammed the content of the papers based on her reading of the titles, and that she didn't actually bother to find out what the papers actually said. n nThus she broke what is essentially the most basic rule of journalism: "know what the hell you're talking about." Not that anyone at Commentary will understand that.
As Squid posted above, the point of Riley's post was you don't really have to read them in their entirety to know what they are have to say and isn't that the real point to Black Studies. The only answer is always racism. You are not allowed to dissent from the orthodoxy. Has there ever been a graduate from any black studies program who actually had a conservative viewpoint? Would you even be allowed into a black studies program without being vetted first?
C'mon, Johnny. Riley not only did not read the dissertations in their "entirety," she did not read them at all, because none of them are finished and published. She read titles and brief descriptions. As with torture apology ('splashed some water on his face,' 'stood up for a few hours'), why is is that conservatives never speak honestly about what they are defending? Don't bother to answer that. I know the answer, without your speaking it. It's because the actual truth is indefensible.
Where did Riley say that she didn't read the papers? Not in her piece, which quotes from the various dissertations.
"In saying this, Riley was blunt but transgressed no rules of journalism other than the need not to offend powerful constituencies. " n nTo follow up on Chris Clarke, Riley admitted that she hadn't read the materials she had criticized. An abrogation of her duty as a journalist, I'd say. Not that I'd expect Tobin to get that. My guess is that Tobin doesn't know what he's talking about either. (Not that that would threaten his job at Commentary.)
The very minimum that Ms. McMillen can do to atone for her false consciousness and bourgeois objectivism is to provide the Chronicle with a detailed self-criticism and plea for forgiveness, followed by a six-hour struggle session in which she demonstrates to the people's satisfaction that she has corrected her views. This kind of public mistake cannot be tolerated in future.
I'll be ordering Ms. Riley's book for my college's library. The liberal intolerance makes the phrase "higher education" a misnomer.
"It is painful to watch a respected publication like the Chronicle descend to this level of groupthink." Well… so doing, it reflect tenets of American higher education, which outside the hard sciences are groupthink, gutlessness and controlling debate by declaring illusory moral province over any issue. Black studies, women's studies… any of the navel-gazing time-wasters burdening American academia, are utterly useless vehicles for demanding social indemnity for wrongs either long past, exaggerated or fabricated. I notice on the site comments are closed both on Riley's original post and McMillen's mewling writ of execution. And try to call up the most-commented list of posts.
… yet many wonder, with "higher education" like this, how we elect people like, oh… obama, pelosi, reid, santorum, and various other ideologues with zero conecpt of reality…
NSR would probably never use this to defend herself from charges of racism leveled at her but it's my understanding that her husband, Jason Riley of the WSJ, is black last I checked.
CHE actually illustrated what "higher education" has become, an insecure, inbred, affirmative-action asylum that cannot tolerate criticism of any kind.
This is insane. n nHow do three dissertations offer any clue as to the worth of a field of academic study? If I find three bioengineering PhD dissertations that were stupid, does that mean bioengineering is a stupid field? n nHow are the topics of these dissertations unworthy of study? Why is it impossible for leaving out the midwifing experiences of entire races of people to have detrimental effects? Why can't housing policy have detrimental effects for specific racial groups, especially considering the entire history of housing policy in the US? Why is it impossible for intellectuals of an ideological movement to have detrimental effects, especially considering the entire history of public intellectuals in the US? n nHow can RSL's post be defended when it makes serious logic and journalistic errors? She doesn't even read words the authors wrote. She's relying on third party summaries. Why should she trust those summaries to be accurate, or provide details about the aspects of the dissertations she's interested in? n nShe doesn't even accurately characterize those third party summaries. Quoting one of them, she says one dissertation "explains that 'The subprime lending crisis, if it did nothing else, highlighted the profitability of racism in the housing market.' The subprime lending crisis was about the profitability of racism? Those millions of white people who went into foreclosure were just collateral damage, I guess." n nSaying an event illustrates a principle does not mean the event was entirely about that principle, or caused by that principle, or even primarily about that principle, nor does it deny any other analysis about other aspects of that event. A tenth grader would be expected to understand that. n n nShe makes criticisms of the dissertations that would be addressed by reading the dissertations themselves. When she talks about the dissertation on the effects of black intellectual conservatives on civil rights, she asks rhetorical questions mocking the arguments she imagines the dissertation to make: "The assault on civil rights? Because they don’t favor affirmative action they are assaulting civil rights? Because they believe there are some fundamental problems in black culture that cannot be blamed on white people they are assaulting civil rights?" nIs there a single person, anywhere, who can claim with a straight face that attacking the arguments one thinks a dissertation makes without reading the dissertation, or even the summary of the dissertation, is an honest form of debate or discourse? n nFinally, the tone thing. RSL was sarcastic ("How could we overlook the nonwhite experience in “natural birth literature,” whatever the heck that is? It’s scandalous and clearly a sign that racism is alive and well in America, not to mention academia."), uses snide rhetorical questions, constantly claims people working in these fields are either dumb or dishonest, and closes the post with a glib one liner mocking the intellectual output of thousands of scholars over decades. n nShe didn't swear, or make attacks based on appearance, or make belittling comments about race or gender. But her tone and style of argumentation is completely outside the bounds of legitimate (to use a favorite word of hers) and honest academic or journalistic discussion. n nOh, plus, this kind of reaction which claims NSR as a martyr for being crucified by the left in response to pointing out the rotten foundations of left wing academic shibboleths was predicted by hundreds of blogs and comments well before she was fired or before the Chronicle made any kind of response. It was even predicted in the comments of the NSR piece within hours of it being posted. n nAsk yourself how the fact that this kind of criticism (which doesn't actually make any arguments or provide evidence to back up its assertions) was accurately predicted well before it was made reflects on that criticism. n nFinally: I've provided evidence and arguments for my assertions. If you feel the need to respond, please do so by engaging those evidence and arguments, explaining how they don't support my assertions, or use evidence and arguments for assertions of your own. Thanks!
The way that liberals so cavalierly throw around the epithet "racist" is absurd. n n Since they only say this about white people we have to consider it in the same context that black people consider the n–word. It is a term that is exclusively meant to dehumanize, degrade and demean. It is used to indicate that the target is not worthy of an intelligent response which is quite fortunate for the garden variety or for that matter even the exceptional liberal as they don't have an intelligent or even a coherent response anyway.
Mr. Tobin, n nI was one of many who wrote to CHE to ask that Ms. Riley not be permitted to blog under the CHE banner. The main problem I and many others pointed out is not that Ms. Riley was offering racist opinions; nor was it that her tone was uncivil. The main problem is that, as Ms. Riley admitted in a later post, she had not read the dissertations she was criticizing. Here is what Ms. Riley wrote: "[I]t is not my job to read entire dissertations before I write a 500-word piece about them. I read some academic publications (as they relate to other research I do), but there are not enough hours in the day or money in the world to get me to read a dissertation on historical black midwifery." It is impossible to read this as anything other than gratuitously insulting and small-minded. This sort of admission also violates the first rule of responsible discourse: do not criticize a piece of written work you haven't read. (I can just imagine how you yourself would respond if, as a blogger at CHE, I wrote, purely on the basis of familiarity with its title, that your latest publication was nothing but "right wing claptrap".) Shame on you for criticizing CHE for doing what any responsible editor should have done: fire Ms. Riley for violating a basic rule of responsible journalism.
Stop whining about political correctness. Riley clearly said that she did not read the work but yet she took time to criticize it. How is it politically correct to dismiss someone for not doing their total job?
Yes, indeed Ms. Schafer Riley is an ornament, quite the schmuck. OTOH, she did make a good point about talmudic studies.
Does it occur to you at all that one need not read these dissertations to know what they say? Or that this is the root of the problem Riley was trying to shine a light on?
Don't ya love that all-purpose silencer: "offensive", to which, of course, there can be no comeback as it is not an objective criterian.
"one need not read these dissertations to know what they say?" n nAre you really arguing that you can know and comment on the content of a dissertation without actually reading it? If so, can I criticize your next post without reading it, and before you even write it?
In third grade I learned a valuable lesson from writing a book report about a book I never read. Apparently you and NSR never did.
One certainly does not need to read the whole of a dissertation to understand what is going on, but Riley didn't provide much in the way of argument for why the topics at issue should be irrelevant to academic inquiry. I don't think she should have been fired either, but the sheer amount of stupidity that has gone into conservative reiterations of her critique of black studies–i.e. the notion that any "objective" reader would come to the same conclusions as Mr. Tobin, or the idea that one of the students at issue here actually suggested that the pursuit of single-family housing is racist–is actually a testament to the relevance of the field.
I think that if you think that just reading a title can give any sort of insight into the level of research and expertise contained in a dissertation, then you are indeed judging a book by its cover, going off half-cocked, or (insert your own metaphor here that goes to show that you do not comprehend).
Why not? Congress passes leviathan Healthcare bills without reading them.