The Aftermath of the Chronicle-Riley Show: An Apology, A Dismissal, and Continued Accusations from the NY Post
Yesterday was a good day for many reasons. Today, reality reminded me of my marginality.
Yesterday, the Chronicle issued an apology for its role in the sensationalization of right-wing treatments of race, ethnicity, diversity, and marginalization. They have dismissed Schaefer Riley from the Chronicle's Brainstorm blogosphere because they:
Beyond that, there were apologizes for their Twitter rants, a recognition that the call-for-debate instituted by the editorial staff and Schaefer Riley has been distressful, distasteful, and disappointing to their readers, and a promise to review their blog guidelines so that something like this never happens again.
The apology is sincere and wholistic. However, the Chronicle never acknowledges their own complicit racism in these matters. What is complicit racism? a resounding example of structural inequality
We have won. Yet, we are the lost souls of this tug of war. Here is a New York Post treatment of Naomi Schaefer Riley's firing: http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/capitol/academics_response_to_criticism_hQdzEqGvH8a0QRFxQcNgMI
Some errant claims by the NY Post:
"She was doing her job when Riley wrote about the failure of black studies at American universities, citing PhD dissertations as evidence of the weakness of the discipline."
In fact, she never wrote about the failure of black studies. She wrote about her disdain for black studies.
"Riley proceeded to describe a few recent dissertations on topics like..."
In fact, these were dissertations in-progress. None had been filed with the university as of the writing of her piece.
"...alleged racism in the housing market..."
in fact, banks have been sued, jobs have been lost, and federal policies have been mandated to curb the actual racism in the housing and mortgage markets.
"But personal attacks and false accusations of prejudice are the only things academics can offer in the face of legitimate criticism, it seems...not a single one of her critics has managed to defend black studies or the dissertations the field produces on their own merits."
In fact, her criticism was not legitimate, which is why we are not legitimating it by citing the studies and analyses that have been devoted to doing just defending black studies, and other critical scholarship, for the past fifty something years.
In fact, her rant -- all by itself -- is our defense. Blacks studies, and its dissertations, are in existence to keep in check people like Naomi Schaefer Riley and the complicit role her actions have in maintaining inequality and injustice.
Yesterday, the Chronicle issued an apology for its role in the sensationalization of right-wing treatments of race, ethnicity, diversity, and marginalization. They have dismissed Schaefer Riley from the Chronicle's Brainstorm blogosphere because they:
...now agree that Ms. Riley’s blog posting did not meet The Chronicle’s basic editorial standards for reporting and fairness in opinion articles.They also admit that their positivistic response to the concerned readers of the Chronicle amounted to giving Schaefer Riley's politicizing ideology validity in an open debate forum.
Since Brainstorm was created five years ago, we have sought out bloggers representing a range of intellectual and political views, and we have allowed them broad freedom in topics and approach. As part of that freedom, Brainstorm writers were able to post independently; Ms. Riley’s post was not reviewed until after it was posted.
Beyond that, there were apologizes for their Twitter rants, a recognition that the call-for-debate instituted by the editorial staff and Schaefer Riley has been distressful, distasteful, and disappointing to their readers, and a promise to review their blog guidelines so that something like this never happens again.
In addition, my Editor’s Note last week inviting you to debate the posting also seemed to elevate it to the level of informed opinion, which it was not.
The apology is sincere and wholistic. However, the Chronicle never acknowledges their own complicit racism in these matters. What is complicit racism? a resounding example of structural inequality
We have won. Yet, we are the lost souls of this tug of war. Here is a New York Post treatment of Naomi Schaefer Riley's firing: http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/capitol/academics_response_to_criticism_hQdzEqGvH8a0QRFxQcNgMI
Some errant claims by the NY Post:
"She was doing her job when Riley wrote about the failure of black studies at American universities, citing PhD dissertations as evidence of the weakness of the discipline."
In fact, she never wrote about the failure of black studies. She wrote about her disdain for black studies.
"Riley proceeded to describe a few recent dissertations on topics like..."
In fact, these were dissertations in-progress. None had been filed with the university as of the writing of her piece.
"...alleged racism in the housing market..."
in fact, banks have been sued, jobs have been lost, and federal policies have been mandated to curb the actual racism in the housing and mortgage markets.
"But personal attacks and false accusations of prejudice are the only things academics can offer in the face of legitimate criticism, it seems...not a single one of her critics has managed to defend black studies or the dissertations the field produces on their own merits."
In fact, her criticism was not legitimate, which is why we are not legitimating it by citing the studies and analyses that have been devoted to doing just defending black studies, and other critical scholarship, for the past fifty something years.
In fact, her rant -- all by itself -- is our defense. Blacks studies, and its dissertations, are in existence to keep in check people like Naomi Schaefer Riley and the complicit role her actions have in maintaining inequality and injustice.
Comments