On thing I liked about Bill Clinton's presidency is that you could be against his policies without fear of being called a racist.

Agree. If criticizing Obama makes one a racist, then that was the number one reason not to elect him president--I was afraid of this. MEanwhile, there are plenty of people who have had it with Obama. Like the excruciating majority of the 800 commenters to this recent NY Times editorial on his sellout of healthcare reform: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/opinion/09rich.html?_r=1 Bringing in these backwoods--but impotent--loudmouths is just a distraction. Not buying today.

Hey, Chronicle-must your formatting function on the new site reject paragraphing?

Agreed, all. It seems disingenuous that Obama's critics are smeared with a label that nobody can really defend against--"racist." Maybe this itself is just part of the rough-and-tumble of politics. There are many valid reasons to disagree with this administration.

Now there's a reason for not voting for an African American, or, for that reason, anyone who is not white and male... fear of being called racist or sexist... Frankly I think you have missed the point. I have read that the number of death threats received by the White House against this president is four hundred percent higher than those against George Bush. We are talking about genuine threats to health and safety, not simple disagreements. The demographic changes occurring in the USA make clear that having a president of color or a woman is inevitable and the Glenn Beck's of the world (and others who feel they are losing something because of this) simply have to adjust. Otherwise, I predict more trouble. Academe needs to lead in seeking reconciliation and unification. Lastly, attacking the health care plan is ludicrous before there is a final bill. That's simply another excuse to oppose him.

There are valid reasons to disagree with Obama. However, trying to deny that there are racial components to some of the harsh rhetoric is absurd. Trying to mischaracterize this article with the with a "we're not allowed to criticize Obama" argument avoids the problem that Republicans find themselves in bed with some very nasty people. I live in rural Texas. I know there's racism behind at least some of Obama's opponents. Anyone in dential of that fact will not have a lot of credibility with me.

<Comment removed by moderator>

This country is depressing. Until it comes clean about racism, particularly against Blacks, in the way that Germany did with its genocidal past, then there is no hope for the US.

Hell, If Thomas Sowell decided to run for public office, I would back him with both my time and my money on any day of the week. But beacause I understand that Obama is an empty, teleprompter reading fraud, that makes me a racist? Please someone, say that to my face...jms--H.R.I.M.

Race matters. It is, and always will be, with US. A country that actually fought a war over whether persons of color should continue to be enslaved - a country that developed the efficiently essential Jim Crow System - a country that had to be dragged kicking and screaming out of the era of segregation and discrimination can scarcely avoid the subject. How we deal with our feelings about race is another matter entirely. Perhaps we should read President Obama's speech on race. His thoughts on the subject may provide reasons to engage in a more civil discourse about where we disagree with him on the issues while reminding us that once an African-American was elected president, crossing the race-baiting bridge as a society was inevitable. There ARE valid reasons to disagree with President Obama, but his ethnicity should never be one of them.

Frankly, I'm surprised that there has not yet been a serious assassination attempt. Both the craziness and the incitement are there. And the people who openly advocated the killing of Dr. Tiller have apparently had no second thoughts about inciting murder.

What strikes me about all this, which is just ratcheted up a notch from the Clinton era and flip-flopped from the Bush era, is the shameless irresponsibility of the "discussion." When vacuous buffoons like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly have free rein to spread their paranoid fantasies, nobody gains except the owners of the media, who know that a really proficient carpet-chewer gets a bigger slice of the audience than a balanced, nuanced, sane discussion. Co-opting the phrase "fair and balanced" just adds insult to injury. Limbaugh et al. care not a flying fig about the issues, the parties, the people. But they do know how to make money by buggering truth.

Just exactly who are you threatening jms948, and why? You claim that "Obama is an empty, teleprompter reading fraud"? I'm sure all of us wish we were so articulate and thoughtful in our criticisms.

Jackson [edited by moderator for personal attack], Beck did debunk them thoroughly. He showed the pictures of the alleged concentration camps that were flying around the internet and discovered that they were indeed satellite photos of concentration camps, however they were from NORTH KOREA!

All these claims of obamas detracters being "racist" or "haters" are not helping anyone. If it becomes "racism" to simply oppose this guy then what does that mean for real racism? I have had many discussions in oppostion to obamas crazy policies only to be labeled a "racist hater" when I never even mention his skin color. To me this cheapens real racial issues in this country. Just like when gates attacked crowley as a "racial profiler" when all he was doing was ensuring that gates was actualy the legal resident of that house. So I say the debate has already sunk to that level way before us "crackers" and "rednecks" spoke our minds. Where was this author when all of the hatefull people screamed about Bush for 8 years? Where was he when protesters by the thousand were calling for Bush to die? Where was he when Bush was compared to Hitler??? You set the standard over the last 9 years. I promise to live to that standard.

Everything we need to know about this debate is in the actual health care bill at http://patientsunitednow.com/?q=node/233 I urge everyone to read this monstrosity.

_perplexed_ jms948 did not threaten anyone. BTW were you this concerned about the level of critism during the last 9 years when it was directed at Bush?

"Michelle Malkin's bestselling book Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks and Cronies is a manifesto of Obamaphobia." Really, Mr. Jackson? I don't think it is possible for you to have read the book, and still come to the same conclusion. I believe what is at work here is "buyer's remorse" - on your part, with Obama, and you should refrain from projecting your own paranoia on other people's extraordinary, and factual-based work. Good luck with your conscience.

On August 14, 2009 at 08:04AM eelalien said: "Oh, this piece was just waiting for trolls... and here they are! Thanks for falling for the bait, guys (we KNOW that you are all males, and white). Now your IP addresses are being provided to the Homeland (soon to be renamed ObamaLand) Security folks. keep it up - we'll eventually find ALL of you." Find "ALL" of us? Really? Who is supporting hate and violence now? I find it hilarious that most publications that have mentioned Malkin's NYT Best Selling Book choose to simply tear down the author instead of refuting anything mentioned in her research. The Chronicle of "Higher Education" indeed. Perhaps you should write a separate article with samples and sources telling us how Malkin is simply Obama-bashing instead of uncovering facts the media chooses to ignore? Mr. Jackson, did you even read the book or have a knee-jerk reaction to the title?

Let's see. Someone spray-paints a swastica on the sign in front of the office of an African American Congressman who supports Obama's health-care reform proposal. The congressman also receives death threats. And you think there isn't racism behind some of this?

OH PLEASE. Higher Education? Have you ever looked at the courses taught in universities these days? Courses with names such as AMERICAN HOLOCAUST? How many college courses promote Marxism, socialism, communism, and the fall of the free market and the United States? Sorry, the Socialist Leftist movement in the United States has finally been exposed.

johnfarley, There have been enough cases of liberals faking such attacks to smear conservatives as racists, that I think we should wait and see. Or perhaps you should report such dissention to the new whitehouse snitch line? flag@whitehouse.gov

"I have read that the number of death threats received by the White House against this president is four hundred percent higher than those against George Bush." Really? I have read that Obama is really from Venus, and eats small children for nourishment. Citation please? Pulling numbers out of thin air with not a shred of evidence is pretty lame. Comparing the vitriol displayed by you and your brethren to the previous President, it's obvious there is now comparison. The main difference is you agreed with it, and the LameStream Media ignored it. Goose, meet gander...

by the way, I would vote for a black man/woman (sorry, WOMYN) for President, just not THIS one....

The quality of political discourse has been at a low for some 17 years now, in my view, and one of the core challenges is the lack of true factual data as a launch point. The reference to Glenn Beck in this piece is bizarre. It it simply and totally bizarre and factually untrue. It seems it must have come from a research point on some partisan blog. The truth: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/23671/ Beck fully debunks the FEMA camp myth, and states that he will probably be misquoted anyway. Surprise... and easy to find.

"Michelle Malkin's bestselling book Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks and Cronies is a manifesto of Obamaphobia." Bash the book all you want, but your words mean nothing if you can't show where she is wrong in her book. It is easy to belittle it, but poin out where she is wrong. Oh yeah... you can't

Sonofdy, you have twice referred to "the last 9 years" of criticism of Bush. Oddly, you got the arithmetic right once before, so there's hope for you. Pay careful attention, please: Presidents are elected for terms of four years. Bush was elected (oh, okay: "elected") to two terms. Here comes the hard part: two times four equals eight. If you find it easier, it works in the other direction too: four times two equals eight.

dank48: He was elected in november 2000. Since then he has been blasted with attacks much more vile than anything obama has faced. In november 2009 that will be 9 years (not counting the elction process in 2000) I rounded up. They did cover rounding in your math clases right? You typicaly round to the nearest number. Do you understand now or do I need to send a 10 year old over to your house to explain it in more detail? Thanks.

John Jackson, Jr. Why don't you tell us if you have actually read Malkin's book or not?

john farley: You might want to check this out. Man pleads guilty to racial threat using Facebook account http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/08/13/facebook.racial.threat/index.html "An African-American man has pleaded guilty after being accused of impersonating a white supremacist in a fictitious Facebook account to make death threats against an African-American university student...."

The left claims that one of their goals is a race-neutral, gender-neutral, classless society, yet they've got a funny way of showing it when they seem to spend a suspiciously disproportionate amount of time using race, gender and class to attack their opponents. The reason they do so is because they are not confident about their arguments. Throwing an accusation of racism at someone you're arguing with is a great way to sabotage a debate you're not winning. When all eyes are upon you, simply call your opponent a racist safe in the knowledge that the debate will grind to a halt until he can prove otherwise. It's a shameless weapon and one which removes any pretence of civility within public discourse. A popular tactic of the left is to claim that their opponent is afraid of or threatened by people who are a different race or gender to them. For instance, if you oppose affirmative action on the principle that race or gender based selection is inherently wrong no matter what the motive, then you're smeared as someone who feels threatened by "strong, powerful minorities/women" who are "encroaching upon your safe white, male world of privilege." They will reach into their grab bag of shopworn leftist slogans and throw them around like wedding confetti in the hope that real, objective, honest arguments will be quickly forgotten about. Thus, if you oppose the agenda and political intentions of Obama, it does not matter if you have very clear, objective reasons to do so and are prepared to articulate them clearly and calmly. No - you're obviously suffering from "Obamaphobia" and your motives are quite obviously infused with a deep-seated hatred of powerful black men. If Hillary had been elected it would have been a fear of powerful women. In smearing opponents in this way, the intention of the left is not just to stamp the word "racist" on the foreheads of those who disagree with them. They also wish to emasculate opponents they wrongly see as being on some kind of patriarchial power trip. What better way to silence those evil white men of privilege than to humiliate them? To castrate their illusion of power by making them look "afraid"? Unfortunately, the effectiveness of this tactic depends primarily on their audience accepting the same flawed left wing world view as them: that white men are the source of all evil, that the only motive for opposing the left is to retain the "status quo" (we see this right now in Obama's rhetoric), that the world is divided into the left's clear cut tribal definitions and everyone feels loyal to their particular tribe and wishes to pick a fight with the other tribes. Whatever the motive of the left is, they certainly cannot claim the peace and harmony of mankind as one of them. For decades now they've done everything they can to divide society and keep it divided. They are the worst offenders of everything they accuse everyone else of. The election of Obama has brought out the worst in the left and unfortunately for them, their behavior is bringing about an epiphany among the American people who, after years of not thinking about what they stand for, have suddenly remembered what it means to be American.

"The way "race" functioned in the Sotomayor confirmation hearings was one example of what this reactionary racial rhetoric sounds like today. The fallout from the Gates-Crowley Affair was another." Yeah, all the "reactionary racial rhetoric" came from Sotomayor and Gates -- the "minorities." That's how it "functioned!" The fact is, the LEFT is enflaming racial tension in order to distract from the manifest incompetence of the Adminstration and Congress. Nothing to do with race, everything to do with standing up against dangerous policy. Citing Mark Potok, a long-time race-monger who's been singing this tune long before Obama was on the national stage, just shows where this writer is coming from. Nazi symbols directed at a black congressman? I would put much coin on a Leftist culprit. That has race hoax written all over it...just like ones we've seen pulled off by the Left time and again over the years.

Is it really about race? If it is so why the most outspoken critics about race in academia are still white? Why do we insist on demonizing whites and everyone else gets a free pass? Blacks, Whites, perhaps you should consider what the other colors in between think of your bickering. I recall hearing some things about the previous president which were not very nice; I told myself that in a republic that was healthy. Now, I hear some of the same hateful things about our current president and I believe the same. It is healthy to criticize our leaders on their jobs. They are our servants and if we do not like the job they are doing we should let them know. Al Franken, used to say many awful things about our president along with most of the Hollywood crowd. Now, most of talk radio is having their say yet instead of turning the channel we acknowledge their comments by keeping tune. But at the end of the day it is healthy for our republic. Our president does not get a pass, neither the rest of our public servants, regardless of what color they are. I think what we want is leaders that say what they mean and do what they say. So from the colors in between the proud Black and the apologetic White, I encourage you to say whatever is in your mind, but be ready to receive proportionally as you give.

"Many of the attacks on George W. Bush were brutal and merciless..." But it was still ok? Why then, is it not ok to attack Barack Obama? "With unemployment and deficit spending on the rise and Americans full of fear about their own economic futures, we should be careful not to fall into the same old trap of racial scapegoating." So, it's racial scapegoating if we are uneasy with our president when his policies lead to increases in unemployment and deficit spending?

eelalien said on 14-Aug-09 @ 08:04 am "Oh, this piece was just waiting for trolls... and here they are! Thanks for falling for the bait, guys (we KNOW that you are all males, and white). Now your IP addresses are being provided to the Homeland (soon to be renamed ObamaLand) Security folks. keep it up - we'll eventually find ALL of you." John Jackson Jr, it's people like "eelalien" that make us right wingers irritated. With the power that Obama has over such people, a power where he can do no wrong, he could easily convince them that we should duplicate Hugo Chavez's system of government. Fortunately, there are still enough moderates and conservatives that can "read in to" his goals. What you are witnessing at the town halls and the overloading of the Congressional mail servers is our attempt to restrain him. Obama didn't get elected by getting every registered Democrat to vote. He won because a lot of Moderates and Conservatives drifted left; they wanted a change but now they see what an ultra-liberal looks like and now realize that he's is far too left of center for the good of the country. This isn't about racism. Of course, there will always be a small minority of people that can't get past skin color but this revolt that we are witnessing is about politics. He would have been far more tolerable had he not tried to "boil the ocean." He needs to convince people of why his agendas are good instead of trying to ram it down their throats. Until he learns that lesson he will become more and more despised. So eelalien, I hope you weren't being serious because if you were you don't deserve to be a citizen of the U.S.

What in the world does this article have to do with higher education? The Chronicle needs to be aware that publishing articles that aim solely to project a political point of view AND that have no connection at all to higher education seriously damages its reputation as a creditable newspaper. C'mon Chronicle, show some journalistic honor and stay on topic.

The Chronicle isn't publishing this, it's just a "blog" sitting here in the ether, it won't make it into the print version. John Jackson was just chosen as one of the writers of this blog so the Chronicle could check off the "black" box in its diversity checklist.

This is an awfully wordy way to say " Criticism of Obama is racist. Boo!". I mean, it's not as if it's filled out with any actual evidence, or anything. Obama's plummeting in the polls would indicate that we're not just looking at a small fringe movement here. There's a general, widespread revulsion at an attempt to bring a large part of the US economy under much more stringent state control, if not ownership. Americans don't like socialism, and have rejected it over and over again.

Oh please - if it were racism, he NEVER would have been elected. And because people (Democratic, Republican, and anyone else) have had enough of Obama's leadership, it is labeled Obamaphobia. I happen to NOT be Republican or Democrat. I am conservative and think for myself. I did NOT vote for Obama - not because he was black, but because of his political views. Are you understanding this, or do I have to type slower??!!

Your condemnation of any criticism of President Obama as nothing more than racist rants illustrates your racist bias. Screams of racism for criticizing President Obama frighteningly replicate scream of racism and islamophobia by defenders of Islamic doctrines. Rather than debating the facts of the issue(s) you attempt to end the arguments by attacking the messenger rather than the message. This implies you do not have, or can not postulate, any meaningful counter argument or facts to rebut the opposing contention(s). If Michelle Malkin's book was the only source of criticism of President Obama, his policy(ies), stated agenda(s) you might have a valid point. The issues presented in “Culture of Corruption. . . “ have been discussed and analyzed on innumerable web sites, blogs, and books for the past several years and months. Even European blogs and web sites have been very critical of Barrack Obama both before and after his election as the POTUS. Why are we required to ignore what little of his history he has allowed to become public, his known activities, and his public speeches? Many criticisms of Obama are criticisms of the leftist Democrats as well. As a Democrat and the titular leader of the Democrats is it really that unreasonable that he is the focal point? His policies and stated agendas completely ignore history. Too many alternative sources of data regarding Barrack and Michelle Obama support Michelle Malkin's contentions for your condemnation to be valid.

johnflob is correct.

Sonofdy, you need to look up "nearest." Even counting all of November of the election year and all of January of the inaugural year, Bush's terms would come to eight years and three months. That's 8.25 years, and it rounds down to eight years.

The "logic" of starting with the election month holds only if you also stop with the next election month. Any sane way of looking at it has a president serving eight years max. No matter what you think of the vote "counting" in Florida or Ohio, and I say it's over and done with and to hell with it, no president since FDR has served or will serve more than eight years.

And I'm an idiot to bother with this.

“We have found the enemy, and the enemy is us”
WARNING: This country will self-destroy in ___ minutes (or days, or years. Choose your own metrics)

I SAY AGAIN: Race matters. It is, and always will be, with us. Let's stop pretending we are really arguing left vs right, conservative vs liberal, or the republic vs socialism. Let's quit acting like we already live in a color-blind society. We do not. So what that means, (and I am typing slower, conservative) is admitting, first of all, you DO have perceptions about Blacks and they are probably mostly negative when you consider the history of this country and if you are over 40 years of age. It also means admitting that your perceptions about African-Americans DO color (no pun intended) your reactions to this president's policies.

James Baldwin said, "not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed that is not faced." The first step ladies and gentlemen is to face yourself - see if indeed there is some racist tinge to your vitriolic blowback. Methinks a majority of you protest a little too much for there not to be....

With respect, Dr. Jackson, surely you don't mean to suggest that disagreeing with Obama's policies or views equals "phobia"--? Discourse, discussion, and debate is the essence of American democracy. Participating in these activities doesn't constitute "phobia."

On the other hand, it isn't correct to say that Obama is being "accused" of trying to nationalized health care. He IS trying to nationalize health care, and that's precisely what the current debate is focused on. And yes, the debate is heated. But has the current rhetoric from the Right gotten any more heated than the vicious, hateful, malicious attacks that the Left directed against George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and others on the Right for the past 8 years? I don't think so--not even close.

And where is the source that validates a statement asserting "an uptick in right-wing militias" and their "renewed calls for a 'race war'"? What factual evidence is there for such a statement? Your writing is usually measured and careful, but this claim seems over the top and unfounded.

I agree with you 100% that responding to present policy debates in racial terms is "the most self-destructive response we can have to our present predicament." What I don't agree with is your implication that those who disagree with Obama and his policies are doing so because of implicit racism. Furthermore, for Obama or his supporters to label opposition as racist simply because of the color of his skin is in itself racist behavior. If he is the leader he claims to be, he ought to stop all of that immediately so real debate and discussion can proceed.

I'm sure these were the same type of articles they printed in Germany about 70 years ago, denying the existence of their own death camps. ;)

"we should be careful not to fall into the same old trap of racial scapegoating"

Would that be like the racial slur directed at Mr. Gladney in Saint Louis, and the beating which sent him to the hospital? By Obama's supporters in the SEIU, of course.

And how, pray tell us, can President Obama, "stop all of that immediately so real debate and discussion can proceed"? Is Mr. Obama calling himself racist or socialist or leftist? I don't believe Mr. Obama began the debate in racial terms. You might want to check with Limbaugh or Beck on that...

@efmcclain
Many of the so-called racist critiques of President Obama are merely creations of overly active imaginations. It is/was not the fault of Obama's critics that he chose to be active in community organization in Chicago. These activities are his history and a review of his history should have been a conscious part of every voters evaluation process when selecting their choice for the POTUS. If a voter prefers to evaluate these activities in a less favorable manner to the activities of another candidate that does not mean they are racist.

As for the 40+ age group DOing color that is especially true of those accusing Obama's critics of being racists.

@efmcclain
I do not depend on any particular person or groups to guide my thought processes and the conclusions I reach regarding anyone else or groups. Yes, I have listened to Rush but on a very irregular basis. But I search the web for information to confirm or discredit his remarks. I also watch those evil hate mongers on FOX. But I also watch the MSM on the local ABC and CBS channels. As with Rush I cross check what I see/hear on these programs with information on the Internet. I regularly visit approximately 20 websites including many European blogs. Google, and occasionally wikipedia, are also handy tools for finding related information from a variety of sources. No I do not put too much reliance on the information on wikipedia but use the links provided for more detailed research. If a website or blog does not provide links to other sources I tend to discount their postings.

<Comment removed by moderator>

Imagine that, a moron writing for the Chronicle of Higher Education. Why am I not surprised?

I remember when higher education was about free scientific inquiry unfettered by political considerations.

Now? Well, your red rag is the CHE. Perfect.

In 2006 I voted for Lynn Swann, who was the Republican nominee for Governor of Pennsylvania. He is a black man. None of my Democrat friends voted for him, instead voting for his white Democrat opponent, Ed Rendell. I asked them if that meant they were racists and they said no. But they lied, because as we now know, if a black person ever runs against a white person in a political contest, and you vote for the white person, then you are a racist.

Of course it is about race. It was declared as much by our celebrity president. "...he's got a funny name, he doesn't look like the other presidents on those bills, and did I mention, he's black?" B. Obama

IMPEACH OBAMA AND GIVE THE JOB TO DR. THOMAS SOWELL!
(is that racist enough?)

One of these two images is un-american and racist, and must be reported immediately to the White House:

http://articulos-interesantes.blogspot.com/2009/08/one-of-these-two-images-is-racist.html

"Let's see. Someone spray-paints a swastica on the sign in front of the office of an African American Congressman who supports Obama's health-care reform proposal."
Silly me! I saw the video of Scott angirly shouting down the doctor who dared to ask a simple question. So, when I saw the swastika on Scott's sign, I assumed it was a criticism of his Nazi-thug bureaucrat putdown of the inquiring constituent the day before. How I wish the Obama people would put out a pamphlet clearly pointing out who the "victims" are so that I don't commit future thought crimes...

Oh give me a break! Obama's operatives and the media are ginning up a non-existent race crisis to intimidate and supress opposition. Americans can see right through that scam. Look people, Americans of all colors and creeds are disenchanted with our president and his lies. It isn't because he's black, it's because he's RED!

Memo to efmcclain:

Obama can stand up and say to HIS supporters, "It is not racist to criticize me or my policies, and I insist that my supporters not accuse anyone who disagrees with me or my policies of racism simply because of that disagreement."

THAT is how he could put a stop to his supporters accusing anyone who disagrees with him of being a racist.

It's got nothing to do with Limbaugh. You obviously have never listened to Limbaugh. It was Obama's supporters who injected race into the debate, and Obama could stop them IF he wanted to.

BUT . . . he doesn't, does he . . . ?

Was this story linked from Drudge?

That would explain how the level of discourse in these comments descended to the knuckle-dragging level right from the get-go.

Obama is a hypocrite since he is not fulfilling his promises that he made during election. It is true that the country is goind down the tubes due to actions taken by Obama and his cronies. Very soon, USA will be just like a third world country. Why don't the democrats declare that USA will be shaped like socialist or communist society where everything is controlled by the government?

We academics could stand to take a step back. I know our personal opinions are important but this is a public forum open to any student, accessible through a simple google search, despite those who think they are not watching or listening. What concerns me most about the comments is how seldom scholars are speaking for the larger community and not about their personal feelings or views. Or let me say it another way, it seems the comments are written in ways that represent personal views and not scholarly thought, attention to the role we play or could play in the national debate, looking below the surface of what seems to be and having a dialogue where things are not black and white (pub intended).

There are forces in our midst on both ends of the political spectrum who could benefit from our leadership in thought, theory and scholarship rather than us simply venting.

I am teaching a racism course, my first, but I have been studying racism in pursuit of a global promise I have made to the world. What would it be like if bigotry, prejudice, and discrimination (not just name-calling and positionality of individuals) were a superstition of the past like the earth being flat. How did we get out of that superstition? Hopefully scholars, teachers and the like can arm ppl with the power of critical thought.

I devised a practice called AGREE TO BE OFFENDED & STAY CONNECTED. When someone says racist, many of us disengage, start gossiping behind the other races back, and I ask who is the separatist then?

These comments aren't saying much new in my view and I am sure that if my students saw these comments they'd say "Wow, sounds just like the comments I read on YouTube." Vitrolic, personalized reactions, as if this is a PERSONAL debate. As they say in hip-hop, It's bigger than hip-hop and this is BIGGER than calling someone a racist.

Something I want to add to the conversation is that there has to be a better way to recognize the role race is playing here. We can't pretend to be colorblind and behave as though Obama's blackness--or every other president's whiteness--doesn't matter. Race matters a lot, but pretending someone supports Obama because they're black or opposes him because they're white or racist is shortcircuiting any conversation that would move things forward. It's the quickest way to just ignore someone's view. Let's actually deal with health care reform, the economy, war, and other issues that can include race when it's the actual issue.

So right now it's health care. A solution isn't clear yet, but continuing to make insurance and pharmaceutical companies rich while some of us have to choose between food and health care can't be what we want. I've known too many people who literally can't afford to be sick. Yet almost nothing I'm hearing coming from pundits' mouths, on message boards, and from other regular citizens is about finding solutions to the actual issues. We don't want to talk about that.

Of course there are places to disagree with Obama's plans or methods (and why would someone have to be racist to disagree?), but for how strongly some are reacting, I don't see many people explaining their criticism or offering other options and ways to tweak a decisive maneuver, and nobody seems to be able to keep it above name-calling. We don't have to play that way. I'm hearing outlandish rumors about scary passages in the health care bill, but how specifically can any of us describe what the bill's real provisions are?

What saddens me the most, people aren't just rejecting the weaknesses of Obama's health care plan (and it's just a flexible draft anyway)--people are rejecting health care reform altogether.

Something to consider: if the government creates a streamlined health care option people can switch over to where they're not getting ripped off, the pressure will be on private companies to adjust or go out of business. Basic law of competition: if I'm selling great widgets for less, my competitors have to do the same.

Let's grow up a bit, folks. If you and I talk health care reform, and you think it's a dumb idea, I'm not going to call you a racist. I'm going to ask you why you disagree. As long as you don't say that only white or brown or yellow or black people deserve health care, I still won't call you a racist. And now that we're talking, we may actually get somewhere.

There has been no increase in the number of security threats to President Barack Obama despite the contentious town hall meetings taking place around the country, according to the White House.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs also said Friday there has been no change in the security precautions.

"We haven't viewed any increase in threats, and there's been no change in any of that," Gibbs said.


The first rule of educating should probably include some verbiage on making sure what you're teaching is actually true.

I would argue that the people who oppose Obama are little different from those who opposed Clinton. After all, if a Democrat is in the White House, Republicans are going to be going for the jugular when they think they can profit by doing so. So the question is: How has the race of the current president changed any of this?

I think Obama exposed his beliefs when he acted just like a racist saying "the cambridge police acted stupidly". Unfortunately he believes the racist stereotypes about white police I believe he was taught this as a young man. Didn't Obama go to Harvard. NO ONE can claim complete objectivity, but we have to admit, that what someone says in the heat of emotion, reveals their true belief's. The President of the United States has to do much better than this.

If speaking the truth is considered a "phobia" I now understand why our youth remain uneducated and unable to figure out the facts. Liberal educational institutions are the problem as is the main stream media. This article proves that you can't separate fact from fiction. Malkin's book is well documented. If fact there are 80+ pages of resources in the back. You are just as bad as the main stream media in ignoring the facts. It is a shame that educational institutions spend more time in "brainwashing" than in teaching students how to figure out the facts for themselves.

Attack and defend. Defend and attack. My guy (or gal) is accurate. Yours is not. I do not listen to what others say. I remain entrenched in my own way of thinking - I choose not to examine the "rest of the story". My truth is truer than your lying truth. I am an individual - free to espouse the talking points with which I agree. Logic and critical thought are anathema to me.

This isn't the best way to conduct public discourse over issues of such great importance to our nation. At this rate, neither the left nor the right will accomplish any good thing.

"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy." MLK

Where do you stand?

I believe our current president is off track. I am from the South. I am not and have never been a racist. I would have voted, even campaigned for Condoleezza Rice had she chosen to run. I simply do not think the current president is presidental material.

Obama won the election and he is trying to implement things he promised to do when he was elected. Some things he cannot do because circumstances have changed or he cannot get enough support, so he has adapted to the realities. He is not a mad scientist or a sell-out. If you voted for him and you are now disappointed, I'm sorry for you. The republic won't crumble if some things happen that you disagree with. Look what we put up with for the previous 8 years! Does anyone really want to go back to the days of W and Dick?

Several conservative posters above have mentioned DR. THOMAS SOWELL as someone they would vote for -- so why didn't the Repubican party nominate Dr. Sowell, a good solid conservative black American? Could it be that the Republic party is maybe, dare I say it, racist?

Or it could be that he is not interested in being president. What I find fascinating is that for too many people in academia, racism is the null hypothesis. You would think that a bunch of Ph.D's would have a little better critical thinking skills than that.

I am appalled at the lack of considered commentary on this, and alleged academic site. Thoughtful debate on topics of interest is our right under the constitution. Crazed diatribe is as well, but really, folks, how does this advance understanding and education?

"Michelle Malkin's bestselling book Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks and Cronies is a manifesto of Obamaphobia."

Well, here's the bottom line: There may be plenty of Obamaphobia. One can grant this point. But it's also true that he did choose tax cheats, crooks, and cronies over public servants--right from the start-- when setting up his financial team. This is just one example--there's a lot more! Some would have us ignore his actions. I disagree and I think those would defend his actions at all costs because of his identity markers are the ones who are in need of challenging their own mindset. If you paid attention to anything other than race, you would be able to evaluate his actions. Some things are simply indefensible and left critics of Obama will be proven right in the end. So, once again: if criticizing Obama makes one a racist, then that was the number one reason not to elect him. I was afraid of this, and I was right.

In other words, distracting the public from Obama's actions by crying racism should have gone out of fashion with the Primary defeat of Hillary Clinton--by crying racism. I am no Hillary fan, so taking her out in that seedy fashion in the Democratic Primary where such tactics work with the knee jerk liberal masses, was a small price to pay, I suppose.

Sadly, the failure of Obama and his supporters to attend to legitimate criticism *from his own base* may lead them to a place where they begin to accept that the right wing will have to take him out in a similar from the right. I guess some here would call that the "rough and tumble of politics." I think it's sad, but, I've already said we should be able to criticize Obama's actions in a civilized fashion or he should not have been elected in the first place. Presidenting while black is not a license to put the screws to the public. Don't think the crooks and cronies didn't know this when they effectively paid Obama-- and Hillary-- to run.

I think you see where this refusal on the part of Obama's "support him at all costs" backers is heading. A number of people have commented that those who were once in favor of healthcare reform are not out there supporting what Congress and Obama have dished up, complete with backroom deals that completely nullify any notion of reform. As if refrom adovates should support something insupportable just because it has Obama's name on it.

I am sorry, people. It is well past time to mature this movement.

ie., Obama is, or has allowed himself to become, a useful idiot.

Nice.

I have been in higher education for 35 years and am depressed by the level of dialogue I see here. Are the bloggers really members of the higher education community? If so, American higher education is in a sorry state.

Just look at the 2008 Democratic Primary if you want to see the state of American higher education.

By all means. GET OUT!

To call someone racist is to elicit emotion. That is why the arguments from otherwise intelligent and thoughtful people seem so vitriolic. We have emotions just like everyone else. If you want measured discourse, then take care to not stir up those emotions by tarring us with the racist brush.

I am actually encouraged by the above comments. Yes, many contributors my not actually be members of the higher education community, but I suspect most are. What I gather from all this is that the dominance of left wing philosophies in higher education may, just may be waning. Higher education should promote independent thinking, and many of us feel that for far too long most of higher education has been promoting leftist ideologies. Hooray for those who are finally stepping up to challenge that.

By the way, yes, I really am a member of the "higher ed" community. :-)

Thank you, kyraocity and patersonday.

Thank you, kyraocity and patersonday.

Right. Here it is, Mr. Jackson. A healthcare non-reform bill well worth killing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/opinion/18herbert.html

Actually, you might inform yourself that many on the right call "corporatist" practices, the funnelling of public money to private corporations by force of the government by the way), "socialism" rather than by tis proper name. "Corporatism" is a hallmark of Fascism, by the way.

I guess they day has finally arrived when the libertarian right and the public spirited left--as opposed to the "defend the black president at all costs!" left-- will find themselves making common cause.

If it takes "the Birthers" and screaming "socialism!" to take it out--because someone wouldn't listen to his own base, well, then I guess that's the way it will go.

And who knows. Maybe somewhere on the globe Billary will take a moment to ponder how what goes around come around and enjoy a private little giggle.

Not that I'm out to make those two happy.

Isn't it just assumed that white Americans are all racists? Since that's been established for so long in academia, why the fuss now? It's like a bunch of academics getting together to shout down water for looking blue (when, really, it's just a reflection of the climate that surrounds it).

From the fifth paragraph of "The Rising Stakes of Obamaphobia" above: "Over the last few days, there has even been talk (media-covered talk) about an Obama-led Democratic conspiracy to create "death panels" charged with determining which sick Americans will be given the privilege of government-dispensed health care."

Read H.R. 3200 if you have not already done so. Go back and thoroughly examine the House bill at: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:14:./temp/~c111EJzqzM:: or better yet, http://defendyourhealthcare.us/houseandsenatebills.html for thorough analysis.

Of course there is no section entitled "death panel" within the bill. But, there is language in the bill that flirts with the establisment of a health care cost containment panel that de facto would have the power to deny what is essentially life saving or life extention care.

However, the most onerous Health Care provisions are not even in H.R. 3200. Such a panal has alreay been established and is now a matter of law. It slipped though attached to the Stimulus bill passed in haste late last winter. Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill was intentional. The architect of that was Tom Daschle, early-on the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department. These provisions were where, among other things, the elderly would figuratively be put on an arctic ice flow and pushed off out to sea. So, Sara Palin was right after all.

Don't, for one New York minute, be fooled by Obama's, Pelosi's and Reid's "concession" on the "Public Option" segment of the Democrat Health Care, oops, Insurance Reform bill (which, by the way, is now being refuted by the White House, cabinet officials and the leadership of the House of Representatives.

In boxing terms, the President's extending such a possibility at a town meeting, it was nothing but a faint and parry; in football terms, a head faint. The bill minus that provision is a difference without distinction.

All the really onerous stuff remains, be it stiffing the elders, having the 65 Plus Advantage Plans go the way of the DoDo bird, limiting choice in plan options and a whole host of other big-brother-knows-best features.

Insurance companies will be forced to provide only "qualified," one size fits all, plans. The extremely penalty ridden IRS tax remedies for failure to enroll in a "Qualified" plan remain (if there are any changes in the plan with which you now are on and satisfied - you will be required to go on a "Qualified" plan - if you don't, the IRS will hit you hard, between the eyes.).

So ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC and MSNBC will blow much happy smoke over this bill, but again, remember this parry's end result, if it becomes fact, is a difference without distinction.

Obama, Rahm Emanuel, his brother Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, David Axelrod remain, to my mind, all Judas Goats, and we the defenseless sheep and lambs.

If you don't know what is it a "Judas Goat," Google it. If you ever have witnessed a slaughter house Judas Goat in action, you'll swear, that cantankerous member of the animal kingdom, knows exactly what he is doing and takes immense pleasure in doing it.

Alan MacNutt

As a physics teacher, I can only say that the majority of this bantering has been amusing. What points are we trying to make? In what ways are we trying to enlighten and inspire one another, as well as anyone else that reads these entries? Most of it is as an argument among children than a debate among scholars.

Some parts of the proposed drafts are good. Some parts are bad. This is why they are still drafts. Until the house and the senate produce a single bill of which both approve, the president is not a deciding factor. Afterwards, he can only agree or disagree. The president does not write the laws.

Rather than just say somethig is completely good or completely bad, discuss what you do and do not like about the current health insurance and health profession systems. Personally, I have likes and dislikes. No draft matches my view of perfection, yet neither does the current system. And of course, no individual (including myself) has a perfect view of perfection.

I do like how my health insurance has covered my epilepsy and my cancer surgery. I do not like the fact that the insurance of my sister's family will not cover anything relating to my brother-in-law's diabetes because he had diabetes before he had the insurance. I like being able to choose my doctors. I do not like the problems I have getting a test done when my doctor is not an offical member (for lack of a better term) of the insurance company's preferred hospital. I had to change neurologists for such a reason. I do like that a doctor's actions can be reviewed to verify that he has done his job. I do not like that every doctor has to pay so much money for malpractice insurance before being allowed to practice medicine.

Emotion is a good thing, provided you can control it. Logic is a good thing, provided you can apply it to real situations.

bowlesf:

Are you among those who think that when Pres. Obama said the Cambridge police acted stupidly, he was calling them racist? I thought that (in the sentences preceding the word stupid) he went out of his way to say that although there is a history of racial profiling in the US, that it was unclear what role, if any, race played in this case.

I will acknowledge that calling a white person racist does elicit a defensive response. But I have also found it quite difficult to call white colleagues on incompetence, non-collegial behavior, ignorance, or related failings without it being *assumed* that I am calling them racist. Most of our national institutions are still not used to having more than a smattering of nonwhite faces and are certainly not used to having to make any changes to ways of doing business that date to the years of exclusivity.

I think you may be right that there is an assumption that racism is an inherent and incorrigible problem. Perhaps if we were to keep our labels within the realm of the emendable and simply demand professionalism, curiosity, collegiality, and dedication to improvement to all parties, then we might make more progress. In short, I think it's only reasonable (given most whites' lack of experience negotiating with nonwhites on equal terms) to expect that learning how to participate in such negotiations will be part of the improvements whites have to make. Calling people racist may not be an effective means of eliciting that improvement, but nor should one deny that it is an area in need of such.

"Are you among those who think that when Pres. Obama said the Cambridge police acted stupidly, he was calling them racist? I thought that (in the sentences preceding the word stupid) he went out of his way to say that although there is a history of racial profiling in the US, that it was unclear what role, if any, race played in this case."




Murder, murder, murder. We're not sure (murder) why this body *cough*murder*cough* is lying here, but there must be an innocent explanation, likely not at all connected to murder, murder. Murder!