next »

[crazybatlady]

Nazis promoted vegetarianism.

I think.

Or maybe just Hitler was a vegetarian.

[supernumerary]

The fantastic volkswagen car was apparently Hitler's idea. The Nazis also built excellent roads - I've driven down them, they're great. Traffic holds up on them very well. Mussolini also built some rather nice looking buildings in Italy, and I'm sure someone can point out some nice things about Stalin (if they look very hard).

What we celebrate from history really has a lot to do with how sensitive we want to be towards others. But I don't think labelling people 'racist' is helpful.

[larryc]

Academics are supposed to stand for freedom of speech.

So it is OK to display racist decorations in the office where you meet with students?

[gennimom]

Academics are supposed to stand for freedom of speech.

So it is OK to display racist decorations in the office where you meet with students?

Again, the display isn't racist, it is historical. Do you think the other three things are racist? Are we supposed to bury all the bad parts of our history and only display the good things? If you look hard enough you could find bad things about each of the people, or something that would offend someone. As a matter of fact, I believe this country was started with indenturing people as well as bringing in slaves, which were cheaper and didn't have to be released after they served their time. Do I condone it? No.
George Washington himself owned slaves and only released them in his will.
http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/slavery/index.html
So by the attitudes of those who feel the stars and bars are so bad, we should also consider the original flag to represent slavery? I don't think that is going to go over so well.

So if someone wants to display something in its historical context, that is his/her right. If someone is offended by that, so be it. The problem is, just because you find it offensive, does not mean you can tell the person he/she cannot display it. That is one of the wonderful rights of this country that so many people are trying to take away from us.

[larryc]

The difference between the Confederacy and your other examples is that the entire purpose of the Confederacy was to preserve slavery.  Don't take my word for it, the Confederates were quite frank about this, see Confederate VP Alexander Stephen's "cornerstone speech" or the South Carolina Secession Ordinance or the recent book Apostles of Disunion. When the KKK employs the Confederate battle flag, that are not misappropriating a symbol of southern heritage, they are using it for exactly its intended purpose. It is an unabashed symbol of white power--historically, and today. Draping it around a portrait of Robert E. Lee, who lent his considerable influence after the war to the (successful) effort to deprive southern blacks of the right to vote, only emphasizes its racist nature.

Yes, the Confederate flag is part of history--just like the swastika, KKK robes, and signs that said things like "No Dogs or Indians Permitted Inside."  Which of these are suitable for office decoration?

I am hitting this pretty hard, but so be it.  The fellow with the display in his office might not be overtly racist, but he is nonetheless sending out a racist message loud and clear.  What black student is going to feel comfortable under a portrait of Massah Lee wrapped in the flag of the lynchers?  It is unprofessional and impolite, and the guy needs to take it down.

[prytania3]

What black student is going to feel comfortable under a portrait of Massah Lee wrapped in the flag of the lynchers? 

According to the OP, the dude with the pictures and flags is Mexican and black. which makes him an unlikely member of the KKK, and no doubt, he's been acquainted with racism.

Personally, I think historical artifcats are historical artifacts, and if you teach history, I don't see what the problem is in having artifacts around.

What's the alternative? To be like Germany? I mean, they spiffed up dachau like it was les jardins des plantes. One of the camps, they are turning into a mall. They tried to get rid of all evidence. That I find offensive. I'm tired of people trying to prettify history. History is not pretty. Why pretend otherwise?

[untenured]

FYI - this has nothing to do with free speech.  I don't think anyone is arguing that he can't show the battle flag, but that he shouldn't show the battle flag.

The battle flag's offensiveness differs in context.  If the prof had a huge flag drape his entire door with a bumper sticker "get out of my country" on it, that would be a racist display of the flag.  The OP's descripton, from what I can imagine, implies a more historical display. 

This reminds me of a dorm-mate back in graduate school who liked to put "world war II" era postcards or mini-pictures on his wall.  Most were Allied and Soviet exhortations to stop the enemy.  Some displayed German Aryans holding a Nazi banner.  My Jewish roomate was soundly pissed off.  Should he have been?  Is it history or is it bigotry? Today I'm still not quite sure.

Untenured

P.S. The most important question is -- does this guy have tenure?

[gennimom]

I don't know, unless they've done more since 1985, Dachau was pretty depressing. I couldn't make myself go look at the gas chamber. Funny thing was, I saw people wandering around in there that could best be described as skinheads. Whether they were or not I didn't ask.
I just want to know one thing. Where in our constitution was anybody granted a freedom from offensiveness?
We have freedom of speech, which pretty much guarantees that people are going to be offended about something. You have the right to complain and grouse about what I have on my wall, so be it. But nowhere is it given that you have the right to make me take something off my wall because it offends you. These people attacking this professor because of a historical display are trying to take away his freedom of speech. They don't have that right.

[gennimom]

The difference between the Confederacy and your other examples is that the entire purpose of the Confederacy was to preserve slavery.  Don't take my word for it, the Confederates were quite frank about this, see Confederate VP Alexander Stephen's "cornerstone speech" or the South Carolina Secession Ordinance or the recent book Apostles of Disunion. When the KKK employs the Confederate battle flag, that are not misappropriating a symbol of southern heritage, they are using it for exactly its intended purpose. It is an unabashed symbol of white power--historically, and today. Draping it around a portrait of Robert E. Lee, who lent his considerable influence after the war to the (successful) effort to deprive southern blacks of the right to vote, only emphasizes its racist nature.

There are plenty of people who proudly wave the stars and bars that have nothing to do with the KKK. Just because one group of people use it as a symbol for something that is abhorrent to others does not make it any less a symbol of the history of this state. And unlike some other states, we don't sweep our past under the rug and pretend it never happened. We just try to make sure it doesn't happen again.
I get so tired of the images of Mississippi that I see on TV shows. One would think all white Mississippians are Catholic, racist rednecks, that have an accent so strong you could cut it with a knife. You would also think all blacks are downtrodden, uneducated buffoons that still cowtow to their white "Massahs." Nothing could be further from the truth. We are proud of our history because we have risen above it, and become more than we ever were.
In case any of you missed it, the previous Secretary of Education was Rod Paige, a black man who grew up in Mississippi. We can lay claim to many famous people, both black and white. And they lay claim to us. But if you folks want to believe the hype and refuse to live here because of it, that's fine. We don't want you here.

Don't equate all of us with the KKK. And don't think our flag can't mean something positive.

[fiona]

There's a difference between what you put up in your office and what you can put up in your home, your hovel, or your private hut in which you display pictures of your kinky fantasy interactions with space aliens and daffodils.

What you put in your office sends students messages about how you feel about them, about history, about their comfort level when they come to see you, and much more.

I had a colleague who insisted on having a very large female nude painting on his office wall, facing students who'd come to see him. He claimed it was beautiful art--which it was--but how does a woman student feel when she's looking at huge breasts right over her professor's face? In fact, how does a male student feel?

My point is that a professor's office should be an intellectual environment in which students, who usually come to see us when they have problems and distresses, shouldn't be reminded of past oppressions and indignities. We owe it to students to give them some peace and comfort as we're teaching them. Their minds are more important than our urge to express ourselves. 

The Fiona

[kaysixteen]

To make the guy take down the RE Lee photo, rebel flag notwithstanding, would set up a huge slippery slope medoubts anyone here wants to slide down.  What's next?  And with that slope, any kid with a grievance, or who just wants to make trouble for a professor, can order changes to said prof's office decor, classroom comments, etc., or ruin his career... Anyone really wanna go there?

[gennimom]

There is a big difference between a historical picture hanging with the flag they fought under, and a nude portrait. One is historical, one is art. If the prof with the nude portrait is an art professor, the students should be prepared for it. If not, then the portrait has nothing to do with his position. The prof with RE Lee is a HISTORY professor. The portrait is entirely in keeping with his position. Are you going to tell him next he can't teach about RE Lee in his class?

[larryc]

Gennimom, you are being disingenuious.  Hanging a portrait of someone in your office, drapped in his flag no less, is not just teaching about someone, it is a public endorsement of what that person stood for.  In this case, the person stood for racism, white supremacy, and of course treason.

Of course we should teach about Robert E. Lee and his cause.  I do.  But we should not endorse white supremacy. 

[mikey]

Hi there, friends of the forum!

Larry is absolutely right and says it sooooo well. 

It is impossible to argue in any convincing fashion that the Confederate flag is not a racist symbol.  Reasonable people in great numbers react to it as such; therefore, that is what it is.  Those who attempt to place "heritage" in some sort of oppositon to racism fail because the Confederate flag is a symbol of a RACIST HERITAGE.

See?

Sorry, folks, if you are put off by this argument.  But I think it's a sound one!!!

[voxprincipalis]

Richard Wagner was a famous, revolutionary composer, a titan in the field. He was also a raging anti-Semite. Ought I to choose not to hang his portrait in my office because I don't want my Jewish students to feel uncomfortable? Then I would also not be able to hang a Mahler portrait because it might make my female students uncomfortable -- he made his wife give up her composing career when they married because it was unseemly for a woman. People (and countries) are complex, multi-faceted entities whose nature contains both things to be proud of and things we wish hadn't happened. If the prof's behavior does not indicate that he is a racist, it is probably safe to assume that the portrait is there for some intellectual reason related to history.

It is always our choice whether or not to be offended by anything we encounter. We choose how we react to circumstances, always. "Being offended" is not a right. You certainly may be offended by something if you choose to be, but that doesn't obligate the other person to change their behavior.

That being said, sometimes it is less trouble to choose not to fight particular battles.

VP