i'm going to assume anyone who cares to read this blog knows something about the debate surrounding Naomi Schaefer Riley's "The Most Persuasive Case for Eliminating Black Studies? Just Read the Dissertations." (if you don't, it shouldn't take you long; the piece is a quick read, although the unease it provokes may be long-lasting.) the Northwestern grad students' response is courageous and, for the most part, admirably measured (not that restraint is the most appropriate or acceptable reaction; more on that in a minute). the faculty response is as professional as you'd expect, and directs traffic to the Chron's original piece on the subject, which risks obscurity in the midst of some very disturbing rhetoric.
i first became aware of the incendiary blog post when a Facebook friend's feed linked to a petition calling for Riley's dismissal. i was a little reticent, even after i read the piece, which seems to me horrifying not only in its willful disregard for the clear lacunae that Af-Am and Black Studies seek, in part, to address, but in the glee Riley takes in her own willingness to sling some serious accusation without much interrogation. specifically, that is, on a platform associated with the Chronicle, a publication which ostensibly owes some fealty to the standards of critical thinking and interrogation academics profess to . . . well, profess. this hit piece would still have been objectionable had it been featured by some other, mass-market publication, but in association with, the Chron, it seems outlandish. there's probably a side conversation to be had, here, about what difference might exist between the blog(posts) the Chron hosts and what the journal (paper?) "publishes," but the content seems so irresponsible that it overwhelms quibbles over their responsibility. Liz McMillen's editor's note, which reads in part:
seems overwhelmingly unsatisfying, particularly when it conflates "strong opinion" with the sort of specific, unfounded attacks that characterize Riley's piece. why, exactly, would the Chronicle be interested in any opinion that so blatantly mocks the academy's supposed commitment to critical thought, careful argument and productive discussion? Riley's piece is shocking in its disregard for scholarship. the Chronicle, given its commitments and focus, is at best an awkward context for it. worse, there's no real "opportunity" to do the challenging and debating McMillen suggests. in the comments? too much of the comment section is a wasteland of briefly considered jabs, interspersed with some thoughtful attempts at discourse, and on the whole nearly impossible to navigate.
still, i was reticent about signing that petition.
i worried that calling for dismissal rather than conversation, or at least censure and discussion, would feed into a narrative in which Riley is clearly already invested, one in which those of us "trying to convince the wider world that black people in America are oppressed" (i feel like this deserves a sic; Riley is proposing, seriously, that this takes convincing?) are humorless left-wing turf-protectors, bent on coddling, reifying victimhood, and silencing dissent. i suppose i was thinking that puncturing that narrative might be an important goal of any response.
and certainly, the students and faculty at Northwestern who responded--and the many bloggers addressing the issue--are doing some of that work. but when i read Riley's doubling-down on her earlier aggressive racism, i changed my mind. the "conversation" i imagined is unlikely to happen in any case, it appears; Riley's response doesn't meaningfully take on the best criticism of her earlier spew. (i especially like how she claims it's defensible not to have read any part of the dissertations before dismissing them in a blog post that is, after all, just a '500-word piece'. Riley undercuts her own moral rectitude by simultaneously dismissing her piece as one that didn't need or deserve research, but somehow still insists that the "argument" she takes no pains to secure is evident and worthy. got that? i'm not going to read that many pages to prepare a mere blog post! so don't get your knickers twisted about my lack of rigor! but also this charge i levy is serious and deserves attention and redress!)
maybe i should re-examine my own desire to focus a response on Riley, on dismantling her frankly outlandish perspective; why is her ridiculous narrative so important to puncture, anyway? sure, it's too common, and it would be great to counter it meaningfully and maybe change some hearts and minds, but i'm growing somewhat wary of my instinct to take great care refuting this stuff in measured tones. it's the voice and stance i use in the classroom when critical material about feminism or queerness or systematic, structural racism comes under attack during discussion--suddenly i'm so concerned with whether the students rejecting these theories out of hand think i'm being "fair," with appearing faultlessly reasonable and dispassionate so as not to alienate them further from the worthy perspective i could share with them. the last time it happened, a row of young women happened to be sitting right in front of me in the lecture hall. a couple of them were crying from frustration as i was trying vigilantly to give "equal time" to the barely veiled misogyny flowing from the back of the hall from young men already very comfortable exercising their right to be heard. i felt sick.
so, this is all just to say: i'm going to start blogging again. i started writing all of this as a facebook status, and realized that's not the venue. not only has there not been a post here since 2009, but i haven't gone back and looked at the content that is here, so . . . consider things under construction. i'll be tweaking and even deleting in order to refresh the look and feel, here, but i think i'll start talking about pedagogy and the academy more generally, as well as performance and new media. and video games. and reality television. and i'll be sprucing stuff up so it doesn't seem quite so home-made. slowly, i'll be doing this. slowly.
so, thanks, Naomi Schaefer Riley, for getting me back in the saddle.
i first became aware of the incendiary blog post when a Facebook friend's feed linked to a petition calling for Riley's dismissal. i was a little reticent, even after i read the piece, which seems to me horrifying not only in its willful disregard for the clear lacunae that Af-Am and Black Studies seek, in part, to address, but in the glee Riley takes in her own willingness to sling some serious accusation without much interrogation. specifically, that is, on a platform associated with the Chronicle, a publication which ostensibly owes some fealty to the standards of critical thinking and interrogation academics profess to . . . well, profess. this hit piece would still have been objectionable had it been featured by some other, mass-market publication, but in association with, the Chron, it seems outlandish. there's probably a side conversation to be had, here, about what difference might exist between the blog(posts) the Chron hosts and what the journal (paper?) "publishes," but the content seems so irresponsible that it overwhelms quibbles over their responsibility. Liz McMillen's editor's note, which reads in part:
"[The Brainstorm blog] is a blog for opinion, sometimes strong opinions, not news reporting by the staff. The writers on the blog—13 in all, from institutions around the country—fall on different points of the ideological and political spectrum. They are not staff members of The Chronicle nor do they represent the views of the staff or of the newspaper. . . . I urge readers instead to view this posting as an opportunity—to debate Riley’s views, challenge her, set things straight as you see fit."
seems overwhelmingly unsatisfying, particularly when it conflates "strong opinion" with the sort of specific, unfounded attacks that characterize Riley's piece. why, exactly, would the Chronicle be interested in any opinion that so blatantly mocks the academy's supposed commitment to critical thought, careful argument and productive discussion? Riley's piece is shocking in its disregard for scholarship. the Chronicle, given its commitments and focus, is at best an awkward context for it. worse, there's no real "opportunity" to do the challenging and debating McMillen suggests. in the comments? too much of the comment section is a wasteland of briefly considered jabs, interspersed with some thoughtful attempts at discourse, and on the whole nearly impossible to navigate.
still, i was reticent about signing that petition.
i worried that calling for dismissal rather than conversation, or at least censure and discussion, would feed into a narrative in which Riley is clearly already invested, one in which those of us "trying to convince the wider world that black people in America are oppressed" (i feel like this deserves a sic; Riley is proposing, seriously, that this takes convincing?) are humorless left-wing turf-protectors, bent on coddling, reifying victimhood, and silencing dissent. i suppose i was thinking that puncturing that narrative might be an important goal of any response.
and certainly, the students and faculty at Northwestern who responded--and the many bloggers addressing the issue--are doing some of that work. but when i read Riley's doubling-down on her earlier aggressive racism, i changed my mind. the "conversation" i imagined is unlikely to happen in any case, it appears; Riley's response doesn't meaningfully take on the best criticism of her earlier spew. (i especially like how she claims it's defensible not to have read any part of the dissertations before dismissing them in a blog post that is, after all, just a '500-word piece'. Riley undercuts her own moral rectitude by simultaneously dismissing her piece as one that didn't need or deserve research, but somehow still insists that the "argument" she takes no pains to secure is evident and worthy. got that? i'm not going to read that many pages to prepare a mere blog post! so don't get your knickers twisted about my lack of rigor! but also this charge i levy is serious and deserves attention and redress!)
maybe i should re-examine my own desire to focus a response on Riley, on dismantling her frankly outlandish perspective; why is her ridiculous narrative so important to puncture, anyway? sure, it's too common, and it would be great to counter it meaningfully and maybe change some hearts and minds, but i'm growing somewhat wary of my instinct to take great care refuting this stuff in measured tones. it's the voice and stance i use in the classroom when critical material about feminism or queerness or systematic, structural racism comes under attack during discussion--suddenly i'm so concerned with whether the students rejecting these theories out of hand think i'm being "fair," with appearing faultlessly reasonable and dispassionate so as not to alienate them further from the worthy perspective i could share with them. the last time it happened, a row of young women happened to be sitting right in front of me in the lecture hall. a couple of them were crying from frustration as i was trying vigilantly to give "equal time" to the barely veiled misogyny flowing from the back of the hall from young men already very comfortable exercising their right to be heard. i felt sick.
so, this is all just to say: i'm going to start blogging again. i started writing all of this as a facebook status, and realized that's not the venue. not only has there not been a post here since 2009, but i haven't gone back and looked at the content that is here, so . . . consider things under construction. i'll be tweaking and even deleting in order to refresh the look and feel, here, but i think i'll start talking about pedagogy and the academy more generally, as well as performance and new media. and video games. and reality television. and i'll be sprucing stuff up so it doesn't seem quite so home-made. slowly, i'll be doing this. slowly.
so, thanks, Naomi Schaefer Riley, for getting me back in the saddle.
No comments:
Post a Comment