Carrol asked, It would probably be impolitic for Steve to describe those who squawked about him on that blog, but really, they are a prize bunch of idiots. But they probably do illustrate the kind of static left professors may increasingly get, and since some (many? almost all?) university administrators are themselves idiots, the static can come from them as well as students.
--I think what we're seeing is the commodification of anti-racism, in addition to the commodification of university education combined in the Hamline story. Administrators market their school as 'the most diverse in Minnesota' and to 'prove' it commit resources to 'dialogues' that are supposed to help make diversity realized on campus. The dialogues, of course, are among students who can afford or have the good luck to be at a private university whose tuition is 24K per year. They remain, therefore, focused on the understanding of race and diversity from that income strata's perspective [i.e. race as a matter of people not getting along and, when the topic broaches class issues, acts of charity for poorer members of racially oppressed groups, eg. trips to New Orleans to work with church groups and 'raise awareness' of most anything but actual political organizing being done by poor people of color]. There area series of frequently made presentations by people who obviously have cornered the market of mulituculturalism 'consultancy', inspirational speakers, etc. who bring their 'models' of multi-racial relationships and dialogue that are said to advance the understanding of diversity issues on campus. One thing you won't find are speakers who come to talk about the link between racism and the war in Iraq, after all multiculturalism in its commodified form has to appeal to all perspectives as 'equally valid' and avoid systemic critiques, elliptical references notwithstanding. The end result is when students then engage in attacks on profs who don't buy into this commodified version of 'dialogues' and 'diversity' 'activism', the issue is framed, 'what can be done to make dialogue more possible on sensitive issues?' And since the issue of race is seen as primarily one of relations between individuals, it is pointless trying to argue that perhaps the anti-systemic orientation of the frame itself is what contributes so to the impression that issues are necessarily 'sensitive' in all instances. However, keeping it that way is beneficial to administrators [what better divide and conquer mechanism is there than to have students thinking their main enemy is a faculty member?] as well as to faculty who have a vested interest in promoting a frame that affirms their exaggarated sense of white guilt [some of these profs really walk around convinced that they are as responsible for racism's form in America as a CEO of a major corporation or a general in the Pentagon, etc.]. To my mind it's a horrible waste. Only two weeks ago there was a brilliantly orchestrated march of 40 thousand immigrants in St. Paul. I thought to myself as I was thinking that if the Hamline administration and 'social justice' faculty along with students who are so busy attacking leftist profs at Hamline were 1/10th as committed to anti-racism as their marketing rhetoric implies, they could have sent out a team of a hundred or more campus dwellers to the rally only 20 blocks from the school? To answer Carrol's question, then, I would doubt that even one of the people he saw criticising my decision to go public on the Hamline debacle was present at the immigrant rights march. Enough said. Steve
