The Eyes Have It

I found the software F.lux helped take the sting out of my eyes from working on my computer for long hours. Its advert says,

“Ever notice how people texting at night have that eerie blue glow? Or wake up ready to write down the Next Great Idea, and get blinded by your computer screen?

During the day, computer screens look good—they’re designed to look like the sun. But, at 9PM, 10PM, or 3AM, you probably shouldn’t be looking at the sun. F.lux fixes this: it makes the color of your computer’s display adapt to the time of day, warm at night and like sunlight during the day.

It’s even possible that you’re staying up too late because of your computer. You could use f.lux because it makes you sleep better, or you could just use it just because it makes your computer look better.

f.lux makes your computer screen look like the room you’re in, all the time. When the sun sets, it makes your computer look like your indoor lights. In the morning, it makes things look like sunlight again.

Tell f.lux what kind of lighting you have, and where you live. Then forget about it. F.lux will do the rest, automatically.”

I’ve had it installed for a few weeks and have noticed less eye strain and an easier time getting to sleep. I haven’t noticed any negative effects from my computer (Mac OS X 10.5). The software is free.

Holding a cold Coke can on my closed eyes feels better than heat to me.

When you provide a forum for addressing a wide audience and that forum is abused, I think those abused are deserving of an apology from those who provided the forum.  This seems especially so in this case since the only reason their work became visible to NSR was the CHE’s own article on their work.  What I certainly don’t understand is why the editors apologized to me (a reader).  Thus, ”I sincerely apologize for the distress these incidents have caused our readers…” from Liz McMillen…but is there no regret for the distress experienced by the students?  Surely, they were not asking for what transpired even if they welcomed the initial attention of the CHE article on Black Studies, and they (and we) shouldn’t have to accept such treatment as the cost of doing business.

Wood’s assessment of the (de)merits of Riley’s blog post seemed to be spot on. But in contrast to many or most of the comments (I read not all but a big proportion of them), his criticism of her post was not loaded with ad hominems, invective, and outrage; it was sober and thoughtful. It was a model of how academics should express disagreements and criticisms. That doesn’t mean that I agree with everything he said – I don’t. However I do think he made a good case that dismissing her was a mistake. 

I’ll have to disagree with you there.

Plenty of people have commented that NSR’s Brainstorm demise will increase her status among her home base: conservatives.  Why is no one assuming that the same thing will happen to those three graduate students?  When the students posted their largely ad hominem response, piles of people came forward to tell them how great their dissertations sounded and it was even suggested that they become regular Brainstorm bloggers in spite of no one knowing much about the real content of their work.  And let’s be honest: does anyone really think that being targeted by a conservative blogger like NSR will serve as anything but a badge of honor among the predominantly liberal core constituency of Black Studies scholars and students?  How about among academics in general?  We all saw the outpouring of support for these students from hordes of people who had never read their work and the intense animosity towards NSR expressed by so many academics… in other words, among the very same people who will be making hiring decisions when the time comes around for these three students.

To insinuate those students will suffer for this is a far cry from the truth.  (Those words weren’t yours, but plenty of people have denounced the career damage these students will supposedly suffer.)

Irregardless is a word. One might deplore that; I prefer to consider it a small joke, to be deployed occasionally, like a stink-bomb.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think you’re in danger of losing your gig, because to me Riley’s canning wasn’t just a matter of her argument–which has been made many times and in many ways–but of her style.  I may not always agree with your writing, but it makes me think.  Riley’s just raised my blood pressure (and I honestly have some uneasiness about any field with the word “studies” in it, though I think the goals of social change and advocacy are laudable in many ways).
 
Maybe I’m overthinking this, but I just finished grading essays on the 1960s, two of which were written by vocally conservative students.  The first essay gave a very nuanced, high-level discussion of how some college students and members the New Left and counterculture, etc. went out of their way to drive off potential allies in middle America.  It got an A.  The second argued, in essence, that the anti-war movement was just an excuse to do drugs and “get laid.”  The student was proudly uninformed, went out of his way to show disdain for things he refused to attempt to understand, and got a D- (I’m a bit of a softy).  Of course Riley took the second approach.  I suppose my point is that we hold our (often teenaged) students to a higher level of discourse; why shouldn’t we do the same for the writers here?  There’s plenty of other sandboxes on the internet–liberal, conservative, and in-between–in which to start flame wars.  The level of vitriol resulted from the tone of her piece.  In most places on the internet, such vitriol is the goal.  We–CHE authors and commenters alike–can do better.

While regarding Riley’s article as overstated, I agree with Peter Wood.  Firing her was a serious overreaction to the article.

Oops.  ..should NOT become….

I am saddened.  This flash-mob Pyrrhic Victory has fed into the provincial, self-contained echo-chamber that seems to characterize the followers of Brainstorm.  You want to guarantee that you will continue to be the butt of sound-bites?  Well you have succeeded. Aren’t you special.  Taranto has picked this up on the WSJ and my guess is this is not the end of the ridicule.  As a retired IHE faculty member and administrator I continued to subscribe to CHE to keep a hand on the pulse.  Maybe not anymore.  No, I am not just saddened, I am ashamed.  Really, really ashamed. This is not the Academy — this is intellectually vacuous bullying.   Thank the Lord, or Vishna, or Allah, or Scientific Rationalism, or the Corporatization of  Higher Ed, whatever, that you folks do not have any real impact on the Academy. Good that you do not — sad that you think you do.

Unlike others you can search me out on the Web.  I do not engage in the anonymity of the blog to fire little spittles and snarky comments.  .

To make it easier:

Marco J. Mariotto
mmariotto .uh..edu

Just imagine how much more support higher education might get if they had not exiled conservatives — 40-50% of the population — from the professorial ranks. Maybe Scott Walker, Rick Perry, and Rick Scott would be more inclined to sit down and talk with university faculty if they were not so painfully aware that professors view them with contempt and banish their allies and bad-mouth them to students. I can’t blame Republican governors for going into negotiations with the first agenda to starve the faculty.  The faculty would be the first to put them out on the street, as we have now learned.

Of course she was silenced. Had she written in the same relatively superficial fashion that blogs require supporting a liberal point of view, she would have been praised. It is clear from your comment about Fox News, etc., that only liberal points of view are considered “reasonable.” I guess your idea of a serious debate is discussing opinions that you only agree with.

You unfortunately show you bias and more unfortunately took it out on your student. You would like to believe that the anti-war movement was this noble cause. Having gone to college during this era and personally known a number of the anti-war guys, there was a substantial number of guys who fit the second student’s description perfectly.
I suspect you bias against Riley is that her position didn’t comport with your beliefs the same way your student’s position didn’t fit your view of the anti-war movement.

So much for your ability to extrapolate criticism. I was using Woods own words, who I believe, you are in bed with.  So much for rigor, eh? 

You may have been using some of Woods words, but the misguided, to borrow the term, claptrap position is all you. “Rigor” is the word academics hide behind when they have no substance to their thoughts. If you don’t want “racist and ignorant ideologues taking up space,” I suggest you stop posting.

Unlike you, I could not assume to guess your area of study. You don’t seem knowledgeable in any area. The fact that there were numerous examples to support the second student’s position means that he had a valid thesis. In fact, that student understood the context far better than you do.again, you close-minded, liberal ideology is on full display. In this case, it’s “believe the anti-war movement was only about high ideals.” Laughable, really.

Normally we think of “publication” of one’s research as presenting it in public, to the public.  Thus it can be an oral presentation (at a conference) or a print/digital circulation.  In both cases, one is open to criticism, response, correction, etc.  Isn’t that the heart of academic research?  But the starting point is that the response is to what someone has actually read or heard.  (Full disclosure: Peter Wood has criticized me for not adequately read/understood one of his blog postings before responding.)  NSR failed to meet that standard, which is certainly a violation of a normal academic protocol.  And when it was pointed out, she just dug in her heels.

NSR’s prejudice was making a conclusive evaluation of something based on just the title and a reporters one sentence characterization of the dissertation.  How fair would it be to make a definite assessment about his book, A Bee in the Mouth, based just on the title?

Chuck Kleinhans

I don’t believe that only liberals actually read something before talking about it. Therefore, I can  at least hope that some conservative sensibilities were offended as well.

ABSOLUTELY FLAT-OUT WRONG

” .. In some ways, Fox “news” is at least a little more honest than the
academic left. Fox pretends to be fair and unbiased with a wink and a
nod and laughs in our faces .. ”

Actually, it has been proven empirically, that because FOX News is talk-oriented, Socialists like Saint Bernard Sanders get 300% more airtime on FOX News than CNN. FOX News needs more “talking heads.” Even Sanders has admitted that “Fox has been fair to me.”

Yeah, yeah, facts are optional in OweBamaWorld. We know. Pray the Chinese Commie bankers never do.

Liberate Arts & Letters. Privatize them, free them from the Republicans.

“Riley’s short essay might best be thought of as a contribution to that
time-honored sport of satirizing academic self-importance.”

If it was an attempt at satire, it was a pathetic failure. There are very good satirical takes on academia and its personality disorders, such as those of David Lodge. Schaefer Riley’s lame piece doesn’t even compare.

You clearly can’t tell the difference between satire and polemic.

 Higher education is in such a sorry state today.

Just finished ‘The Academic Mob Rules” op-ed by NSR in today’s WSJ. The treatment accorded NSR is typical of left wing academia so called discussion or conversation. If you don’t agree with us, out you go! What a laugh it is that McMillen and her other 6500 so called academics are PAID to spew drivel.

 Imagine how we could reduce tuition rates by firing all 6500 today. We would not even notice they
were history. We could reduce student loan amounts. Why even get a loan to enroll in useless courses. Students majoring in these “studies” may find it very difficult to find a job in the marketplace today.

 I guess they will look for a “studies’ job.

.    

You are one for two, although I suspect that “only liberals read something before talking about it” is a major exaggeration about liberals and reading. However, there was nothing that should have offended anyone’s sensibilities. That is unless the criticism resonated and hit close to home, which it clearly did.
Was the blog superficial? Of course, all blogs are at a few hundred words. Should the examples of a few low quality dissertations indict an entire area of study? Of course not.

However, was Riley directionally correct in her criticism? The panicked, vitriolic, ad hominem attacks on Riley point to a definitive yes. So, the “sensibilities” you seem to be referring to offending appears to be liberal ideology. There is no question that she offended those and clearly, for liberals, that appears to be a firing offense. In that regard conservatives are much more tolerant of opposing views.

To Author12, well perhaps we almost agree on something. You wrote, “Should the examples of a few low quality dissertations indict an entire area of study? Of course not.” I say we almost agree, because in the case of NSR, the dissertations are not complete and she didn’t read them. Therefore, I can’t say they’re low quality, but I can agree with you as a general principle that a few low quality dissertations don’t indict an entire area of study.

It appears to me that you’re contradicting yourself, because earlier you wrote, “The sample size remark was priceless. Riley was using examples for a blog, not writing a research paper.” So, I’m really not sure how you feel about sample size. You even implied that I was dishonest (With my “sensibilities,” I considered your statement/question, “Why can’t you at least be honest”  to be a personal attack. I prefer to attack issues, not people). I do know, however, how I feel about sample size which is “Should the examples of a few low quality dissertations indict an entire area of study? Of course not ” (Author12, 2012).

NSR’s attack on Black Studies was nothing new. I don’t have strong feelings about Black Studies one way or the other. I did take a course in college and thought I learned a lot from it, but I don’t get upset when people attack it.

I mentioned the sensibilities that I have. I am offended when someone (liberal/ conservative/ moderate/whatever) writes about something they haven’t read. I’ve never done that and never will. When I write a book review, I actually read the book. If that is only a “liberal sensibility,” then I wear that badge with honor. Thank you.

What is flat out wrong, Captain Caps?  I have no idea what you are agreeing or disagreeing with, much like Mitt Romney. Anyway, why are you replying to me? But as long as you did, one simplistic anecdote is not empirical proof of anything. Amount of airtime is hardly the measure of objectivity, how information is presented, distorted and mangled is the issue. and Chinese bankers are not the problem, the US gov’t owns the vast majority of its own debt. As for last sentence….huh?

I didn’t say that I approve of “stirring the pot,” I was making an observation based on the evidence.  NSR is merely a more extreme example of the generally low level of discourse in Brainstorm.  

For your reading pleasure, I present an old Brainstorm column and the blogger’s subsequent explanation.  Appallingly but not surprisingly, neither caused nearly the uproar we have seen with NSR.

http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/assange-morality-and-desire

http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/sex-is-complicated/30274

I don’t know whether to put you into the category of the sadly naive or the willfully duplicitous. While your description of rigor is not inaccurate, the practice of it by academics with an agenda involves suppressing research that runs counter to the agenda, silencing points of views that disagree, “adjusting” data so the models give desired results, and making sure that the peer review group members are consistent in their views.
Hmm, the suppressing of opposing views sounds just like what’s happened to Riley. While the activities I’ve described above probably are a lot more prevalent in the softer disciplines, including so-called disciplines with an overt agenda such as Black Studies, it even occurs in supposed hard sciences. Global Warming, oops I guess that term has been discredited, Climalte Change is an example in the hard sciences.
I suggest you look at Latour’s work on the construction of science. It will help you if you are sadly naive, but not if you’re willfully duplicitous.

“Was Riley fired because of what she said, how she said it, or how she handled the initial criticisms?”

“It undergeneralized by treating a handful of doubtful-looking
dissertation titles as evidence of weakness in just black studies…”

May I point out, Peter Wood, that in your assessment of the three African American studies dissertations, you are actually of the same opinion as Ms. Riley. 

Good luck in your future endeavors, Wood. 

“It undergeneralized by treating a handful of doubtful-looking  dissertation titles as evidence of weakness in just black studies..”

May I point out, Peter Wood, that in your assessment of the three African American studies dissertations, you are actually of the same opinion as Ms. Riley.  This is not an indictment, just an observation.

“Was Riley fired because of what she said, how she said it, or how she handled the initial criticisms?”

I do not know why Ms. Riley was eventually fired.  Her article was irresponsible in tone and her lack of background information was deplorable.  However, as many have pointed out, other Brainstorm blogs exhibit the same qualities. 

Perhaps the main issue was Ms. Riley’s overt and excessive expression of contempt: for the dissertation topics, for African American studies as a whole, and for the community of readers and scholars at the Chronicle (especially in her post to the readership after the uproar began).  In fact, her original error of not bothering to ask for and read chapters of these dissertations before writing a blog post also demonstrates contempt. 

Contempt is a very difficult emotion to be forced to swallow, and when its source is someone with fewer institutional credentials than the targets of that contempt, there will be a fierce backlash.  When the targets of that contempt are perceived as vulnerable or as acknowledged historical victims of racially-based contempt, flames are fueled beyond control.

As I pointed out above, you essentially share the same opinion of African American studies that Ms. Riley does.  You considered the three dissertation titles “doubtful-looking” (also without having read the dissertations) and Black/African American studies as exhibiting “weakness”.  However, no one is calling for your ouster on this blog post.  You have been wise enough to to bury this opinion in a pair of adjectives buried in a fairly lengthy post, and the general tone of your article is not overtly or overly contemptuous.

Ms. Riley’s longstanding contempt of academe bled profusely through her assessment of those three dissertation topics, drenching three young scholars in a sudden and shocking shower of contempt.  Did they really deserve to be the ritual sacrifice?  Could Ms. Riley have chosen more accomplished scholars, who could have answered her contemptuous barbs with the strength of experience?

Those scholars, and their mentors, experienced Ms. Riley’s contempt has having racial animus.  I believe you, however, when you say that Ms. Riley is not racist.  Her fault lies in choosing to express, in a reckless and uncontrolled way, an emotion laden with historical baggage to precisely that target audience who cannot help but carry that baggage.  Is it any wonder that they perceived her as racist, even if she is not?

Intellectually, it makes no sense to have fired Ms. Riley.  She is not a shining light philosophically, but neither are some other Brainstorm bloggers.  Certainly the twin values of free speech and academic freedom should logically carry the day here.

Emotionally and socially, however, the sheer destructiveness of Ms. Riley’s contempt, especially toward targets regarded as vulnerable in the community, undermined whatever acceptance (or tolerance) there had been for her here as a person.  Calls for her ouster stemmed from this community rift, and Ms. Riley’s intellectual sloppiness was called on to bolster the argument.

You may not like this answer and may not think people’s emotions or social ties are important in academe, but every workplace has a culture and a system of emotional and social ties.  I am reminded of Daniel Goleman’s book on emotional intelligence.  Academics tore it apart as a piece of pop-psych babble, but there’s an underlying truth that the higher your level or visibility in an institution, the more important the social skills become, while intellectual skills take a back seat.  Academics operates in the same way, although many scholars refuse to acknowledge it or try to resist it.  In the end, we are all 98% social chimp, and we bond in community wherever we are.

I highly suggest that Ms. Riley pick up a copy of “Emotional Intelligence”, regardless of the contempt she may have for such titles.  Outsiders to any culture need to learn its ways, lest they be misunderstood and run out on a rail.  You cannot come from the outside and argue for change in a society while you are insulting its core values and the people who hold them.  Every new manager learns this at some point or another.  You also cannot be perceived as attacking the vulnerable, even though, as you accurately pointed out, the three young Black Studies scholars need to be able to handle criticism and even outright attacks.  You may be right, but the community doesn’t see it that way and they will circle the wagons.

More deft handling of sensitive issues makes all the difference in the world.  There may be some re-engineering that needs to be done in African American studies, but waltzing in from the sidelines with dynamite is not the way that is going to happen.

Like I said, what is your point?

FLAT OUT WRONG is not a complete sentence and has no connection to anything

Beneath that is a quote that is not mine.

Beneath that is some bullshit about a ridiculous example that proves nothing.

Beneath that is some chuckle-head nonsense that makes you think you’re clever.
 
Beneath that is there is a confused call to liberate, privatize and free “Arts and Letters”

My brain is fully engaged, Captain, why don’t you try stringing some coherent thoughts together.

Author12, can you not stop?  You have been shown over and over to be an ignorant and bitter hack.  No one needs to hear more from you. You have exposed yourself and made your point, and everyone else’s too.  Now just go back to watching Fox news and leave us alone.

Ah, but I do know what you think. You’re a liberal and, as this Riley situation clearly shows, liberal thought is very carefully monitored and opposing dissent is quickly squashed. You’d quickly find yourself ostracized in the faculty lounge if you didn’t adhere to the liberal orthadoxy.
My views on science aren’t politicized. I’m prepared to be persuaded that global warming exists. However, I’m not going to be persuaded by a group who do not allow dissenting positions, quash articles that don’t agree with the approved position, and, as the Climategate memos so elequently showed, adjust the data to get the results Mann & company want. A suggestion for you: you might want to add Popper to your reading list. Assertions can never be proven, only disproven.
I’ll leave you with a final quote as to how your liberal agenda-driven academic friends use the term “rigor.” “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.” Unfortunately for them, it is clearly “less.”

No, it doesn’t mean they’re racists, unless you fancy yourself Humpty-Dumpty.   Suppose a person looks at a few, say Education Ed. D. thesis titles which happen to sound to that person sort of dumb or trivial, and then condemns entire Education departments?  What kind of an -ist would you call that?    Certainly not “racist”.

Not quite.

Part of my original point was that the articles did not cause the kind of uproar, including the volume of comments, that NSR’s did.  That’s a big part of claiming a double standard.

And let’s be honest about Essig’s “expertise.”  Her field is a pile of radical politics.  I’ve said in other comments that Essigs work is no different From NSR’s in the sense that both take their predetermined political ideas and apply them to the world around them with more than questionable results.  Essig’s posts only look like they have “content” because a few academic departments consider her radical politics to be legitimate “expertise.”

No, I’m tired of seeing it the same way I’m tired of hearing the crazy homeless guy ranting about the government putting probes in his brain.  The delusional bleatings of the mentally infirm lose their attraction after repeated utterance.

“Ms. Riley’s longstanding contempt of academe…”    Given that Riley’s father is a professor, maybe she has Daddy issues?

 C, do you?

What a dopey comment from the Victim Studies college.

 Or perhaps Ms. Riley’s dismissal of “childbirth literature” comes from not herself having been pregnant or birthing? And thus she never went down to Barnes and Noble and looked at the shelves of books on pregnancy and birthing.  She’s mother of two children, but perhaps they are adopted, or she used a surrogate (fits that WSJ lifestyle doesn’t it?  why wear out your own womb when you can rent?).

A good post by Dr. Wood. However, it was entirely legitimate for Ms. Riley to give her opinions of these dissertations and on Black Studies based on reading the original Chronicle article, which gave a brief description of each one. 

I can’t comment on all of the dissertations, but the one claiming that scholars like Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell had somehow threatened the black civil rights movement was certainly not a scholarly dissertation (assuming that the Chronicle accurately describe the finding). A dissertation is supposed to advance understanding, not serve as a manifesto.

Any student of mine who made any such similar claim in any sort of paper would be rhetorically thrashed.

Yes, Riley sure is playing the victim in her piece in yesterday’s WSJ.

Sad to note, but I think Liz and others will recall this mess and realize; there was a moment there, just a moment, when a dangerous and perhaps even heroic action might have been taken, against all advice. These chances don’t come around in every life. When they do they should not be squandered. Plenty of time remains (a lifetime) to rationalize, and regret. Liz had that chance, maybe her bosses did too, and some of her colleagues. No takers.

This whole sad spectacle was so predictable. NSR plans a career-boosting move (post something outrageous, get yourself fired from the CHE, and ride the wave of indignation into right-wing nuts’ studios and a better job elsewhere). And the half-wits among the readership and at the CHE editors’ offices oblige. Well done, NSR.

You’re intentionally misunderstanding wepstein’s point.  He’s talking about identity-based studies. You expand that into areas that require years of study to master a language or to fulfill a job that the government has deemed to be of strategic importance, as was the case with Russian during the cold war and is now the case with Farsi and Chinese.  In “Middle East Studies” you’re not supposed to focus on your Middle Eastern ancestry, you’re supposed to learn the languages and the culture, usually from an outsider’s perspective.  In “Asian Studies” you’re supposed to learn Asian history and languages.  The focus of these subjects is knowledge acquisition, not activism or social justice.  Just taking areas of study and adding the word “Studies” to them does not make them part of the group wepstein was talking about.

As I understand it, wepstein is making the point that seeking differentiation via an identity-based curriculum is neither beneficial to the individual nor to our society. 

This is a value judgement and has nothing to do with the question of program funding.  Anyone has the right to fund anything they want, including Gay Studies, Black Studies, Green Studies, and Purple Studies.  I might feel that the resources would be better spent somewhere else, but thankfully I don’t get to make all the decisions.

Is this an attempt at being funny?  Both the “Daddy issues” and the bizarre “birthing” comments are pretty inappropriate.  If the connection is that Ms. Riley mentioned the black midwive thesis, then it’s a tenuous connection at best.  I think it should be legitimate to question whether a topic has enough academic merit for a dissertation even if bookshelves are filled with books on that topic. 

BTW: I read the WSJ and don’t believe in renting wombs.  There, wasn’t that funny?

You have a third-rate mind that accomplishes nothing. Congrats on fooling your college, like Liz “Dances with Lies” did with Harvard. Great job — you can be OweBama.

I’m clearly going with the “slow” option. As I stated earlier, assertions about scientific matters are theories. Your example, the belief that the earth was flat was a belief because of a “scientific” assertion about the planet then in effect.
Your interminable paragraph about the scientific method was a keen sense of the obvious, although clearly a novelty to you. Of course, assertions of scientific matters are tested. Duh! You still exhibit a sense of ignorance in your statement, “Explanatory systems are confirmed…” Things are never “confirmed” or proven. They are simply not disconfirmed. (Somebody didn’t read their Popper, now did they?) Also, human agency is never completely taken out of the equation. Who interprets results? Aliens?
So feel free to share with your colleagues. The french fry girl and the milkshake attendant will get a big kick out of you trying to pretend to be intelligent. Back to the drive thru window for you!

So there’s no “knowledge acquisition” in Jewish Studies, African American Studies, Gender  Studies, Latin American Studies?  Or is it that you really think those things are not worth studying?  

Is it invalid for a person of Asian descent to major in Asian Studies?  Is it better if a person of African descent majors in Asian Studies?  What about people who are mixed race, are they doubly excluded?

Psst…hey, psst….Hey Professor of Education:  you might want to check out some of NSR’s earlier writings.  (Hint: she thinks the field of Education is bogus.)  

>>>  Her fault lies in choosing to express, in a reckless and uncontrolled way, an emotion laden with historical baggage to precisely that target audience who cannot help but carry that baggage. Is it any wonder that they perceived her as racist, even if she is not?

In other words, the “target audience” cannot be expected to think clearly in the face of harsh criticism.

And this is how you defend the field of Black Studies as a legitimate academic endeavor?

Yeah, totally parallel cases. I mean, Mr. Wood clearly attacked the work-in-progress of graduate students without actually reading a word of any of it, and then attacked those graduate students themselves personally.

Really razor sharp analysis there, buddy.

Good for you, Mr. Wood.  Well said.  Chronicle; shameful cowardice.

Midwives have also played a crucial part in other women’s child birth experiences. It IS genuinely interesting that many slave owners used their female household slaves as helpers/midwives during child birth. Turns out that during that “peculiar institution called slavery” most white women also used midwives.

During the times when midwives commonly practiced, they were a crucial part of the childbearing part of ALL women’s lives. And no, you don’t really have to explain this ….. (why the little dig?)

I read all of the dissertation descriptions (that’s all I could find). If these descriptions accurately represent the works, I find them to be a curious mix of scholarly work and political or personal position papers.

I’m looking forward to reading the published dissertation to see whether it is a scholarly work or not. There would probably much less controversy around Black Studies if the scholarship part were more emphasized and the activism part were toned down.

“By the way, she didn’t attack the graduate students personally.”

Of course. The accusation of racism by Schaefer Riley wasn’t personal. No, I don’t see anything idiotic in that idea at all.

“…is not doing anything to reduce my suspicion…”

Because your suspicions *really* matter at the end of the day.

“There are plenty of reasons for getting rid of this as an academic field. Naomi just tossed off one.”

No, she didn’t. She provided a reason to get herself tossed, which she was. Her article was crap. She got what she deserved. Get over it already.

You might think about collecting your postings in an article. Title suggestions? The Ridiculous Musings of a Liberal Pseudo-Elite. While you might think the scientific method is a modern creation, since the dawn of time humans have developed statements of belief that they used to describe the world around them. When found lacking, they modified or even discarded them in favor of new ones. I had put quotes around scientific in describing this process because it wasn’t as formalized as it is now. It was, however, directionally the same. As how it applies to the the flat earth, there are numerous writings on ancient cosmological systems that had this concept as its premise. If you chose to remain ignorant, good for you.
But let’s review the bidding, as they say, of this posting stream. I opened your eyes to the politicization of academic “rigor” and global warming “science.” I accurately predicted your sheep-like support of liberal positions. I’ve now explained to you how theories are formed of postulating beliefs and have been since time immemorial and can only be disproven and not proven.
Like the slow student who believes himself to be smart and insists on arguing absurd positions, you are tedious and holding back the entire class. Time to sit down and shut up.
All of this because you weren’t smart enough to understand that Riley was right. If you are an indication of the intellectual level at COHE, she was wasting her time and talent blogging for it.

LOL. Of course you read my post. Nobody would believe you didn’t. Having an inferiority complex masked by a superiority act, you would psychologically incapable of resisting. The good news? Denial means that you are on your way to the death of your liberal ideology. In the five stages of grief, you’ve exhibited anger and bargaining. Now it’s denial. I just hope the depression won’t last too long before you reach acceptance.
I have the time, because as a 1%, I have worked hard in the past and now can enjoy picking and choosing what I want to do. (I’ll make another predictions – you’re an OWS sympathizer.) I haven’t had this much fun since we held down a liberal at Cranbrook and cut up his all-to-short paper entitled, “The Benefits of Liberal Ideology.”
A word of advice – don’t repeat a insult theme that was previously done. I cringed when I saw you repeat my fast food trope. These posts aren’t Shakespeare, but simply parroting what you’ve heard before just isn’t done. Show some originality!

Inane and boring. I won’t bother reading any more of your posts, AND I won’t lie about it. Stick a fork in you – you’re done.

jfyi..

Your perchant for regression to insult/s as foundation for your logic implies an irony in regards to your alleged superiority.

What part of math don’t you get? FOX is talk-oriented. Socialists admit they get 300% more air-time on FOX than CNN.

Ridiculous, absurd and worthy of defunding. No wonder, the USA has tens of millions UNEMPLOYED/under-employed — can’t do the math to pay the bills.

Ok, Cap’n.  Yeah, they get 300 % more air time and 600% more ridicule and derision. Who is good at math now?  Oops, sorry to interrupt, I see the nurse has arrived with your meds.

Thanks for proving that liberalism is a mental disorder. Looking forward to defunding you and your pals. The USA’s bankrupt, can’t afford useless deadwood. Mao sent your kind to the mud-farms — he wasn’t all wrong.

Really, that is what they would say? Interesting, why would they care? Do you generally identify people (wildly inaccurately) by broad political labels? Are you the Capitalist Cap’n Ryback? I think I met your son, Neo-liberal Lance, and daughter, Facist Frannie. Seemed like nice kids though Frannie ain’t much of a looker, she might need to tone down a bit on the Flashy Facist eye shadow. I told them they should call you more but not when FOX news is on. I know you need to hear what all those socialists are doing. How long have you actually been in the closet about your secret socialist behavior? You seem to want to talk about it a lot.

I am so sorry, I thought you were an angry middle-and-up aged man  with odd syntax. But your precocious use of text acronyms actually necessitates you being a 12 year old girl. Shouldn’t we change the topic to the Twilight saga or to the Hunger Games. Actually I shouldn’t be talking to you at all. Ok, good luck defunding academia at your next slumber party.

GIGO

This study said (insert preconceived belief) — GIGO. Or, “stupid is, as stupid does.” Or, Hitler did the same thing with the Jews — defund soft-side academia.

Later, Rube. Bernie Sanders said you’re dim. Congrats.