Duke professor criticized for comments about African Americans

[subzero02]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/duk...id=mailsignout

[davekay1971]

A very unfortunate amalgamation of both African-American and Asian-American stereotypes, which are generally unfair to both groups. This sounds like a crotchety, ignorant old guy in a barber shop waxing philosophical "the Blacks" and "the Asians" and the state of America today, which is not what you'd like to see from a Duke University professor.

It seems to be the norm that offensive speech from professors is protected by universities. Saida Grundy at Boston University recently unleashed several racist tweets directed toward white people on her twitter account (I give her props for her twitter handle: Lord Commander). BU had the same basic reaction as Duke: we condemn the comments but stand by our professor's freedom of speech.

On the one hand, my philosophy on any speech is that people should have the right to express their views, even when the vast majority of society finds those views offensive (keeping in mind that what is offensive is changes dramatically over times and cultures, and today's offensive remark may be tomorrow's consensus opinion, just as today's consensus opinion may be tomorrow's offensive remark). However, while I am rarely surprised to hear racism and ignorance, I find it disconcerting to hear it from those among us who are supposedly the most educated.

For a link to an article on Dr. Grundy's comments and BU's reaction:
http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opi...k_racial_furor

Both situations show that education is not a perfect panacea for ignorance!

[Bostondevil]

This story caused me to google Professor Hough. He turns 80 this year. IIRC I've seen research that shows our filtering abilities diminish with age. I agree with Duke publicly supporting his right to make unpopular and offensive statements, privately I hope Duke is strongly urging him to retire. Free speech or not, these statements were unwise.

[davekay1971]

This story caused me to google Professor Hough. He turns 80 this year. IIRC I've seen research that shows our filtering abilities diminish with age. I agree with Duke publicly supporting his right to make unpopular and offensive statements, privately I hope Duke is strongly urging him to retire. Free speech or not, these statements were unwise.

My 89 year old father would disagree with the results of that research. My mother, my brother, my wife, my sister-in-law, my kids, family friends, and everyone else who has talked to my father recently, would all completely agree.

[left_hook_lacey]

I saw this earlier this month and considered posting a thread about it but thought better of it in the end. This has resurface because he was contacted and asked if he would like to change what he said or if it was taken out of context. He said his only regret was that he wasn't more clear in his comments about how he felt.

[luvdahops]

I had a couple of classes with Hough in the early 80s. At the time, he was a widely respected expert on US-Soviet relations. A brilliant man for sure. However, even then his general demeanor could best be described as brusque.

I actually think that it reflects well on Duke to defend his right to make such comments, however offensive they obviously are, as it shows that we as an institution are not totally beholden to PC thought police.

[Bluedog]

This story caused me to google Professor Hough. He turns 80 this year. IIRC I've seen research that shows our filtering abilities diminish with age. I agree with Duke publicly supporting his right to make unpopular and offensive statements, privately I hope Duke is strongly urging him to retire. Free speech or not, these statements were unwise.

He's already planning to retire next year...2016.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Time says he has been placed on leave.

http://time.com/3882330/duke-profess...s/?xid=fbshare

[Reilly]

Does anyone have a link to the NYTimes editorial about the Baltimore riots that the professor was complaining about? The link up above describes the NYTimes editorial as blaming the riots on white racism -- I don't know if that's what the editorial actually said. As a black Baltimore-bred writer pointed out, blaming the riots on white racism misses the point in a city with a black mayor, black city council president, black elected prosecutor, half black police force, majority black city populace, and long history of powerful black churches and black political leaders.

[Bluedog]

Time says he has been placed on leave.

http://time.com/3882330/duke-profess...s/?xid=fbshare

And Time would be correct that he's on leave, but not because of this incident. He was already on leave this year. Check out The Chronicle for quotes and more details.

[bundabergdevil]

I had a couple of classes with Hough in the early 80s. At the time, he was a widely respected expert on US-Soviet relations. A brilliant man for sure. However, even then his general demeanor could best be described as brusque.

This floored me...almost as much as seeing Professor Hough's picture in all of these articles. I honestly can't believe he has been standing in front of a classroom (hard to call it teaching) this long. In fairness, he was my professor in the spring semester of my senior year. So, I had more pressing things on my mind, like red cups and sleeping in. But, I've been telling stories about two professors since my time at Duke from the late 90s to the early 00s. The first, my career adviser, breast fed her baby during our career discussion. I'm laid back and understanding --- I would have been fine with this had their been a covering blanket but, there wasn't. My already poorly constructed life plans were all the more awkwardly articulated because I was forced to stutter through them in front of fully exposed nipple, then suckling babe, for most the meeting.

The other story is Professor Hough. He was the quintessential bumbling, brilliant, professor. He showed up, wispy hair combed over, telescope glasses perched on his nose, and immediately launched into rambling recollections of soviet era politicking. But, what reduced me to near giggles every time was his underwear. He'd tuck his wrinkled dress shirt DIRECTLY into his underwear. For whatever reason, his underwear bunched above his belt so that it appeared, while teaching, as if his midsection was held aloft by an underwear inter-tube. Unfortunately, this was not enough to keep me afloat in his class and I scrapped by with the grade an itinerant senior deserved.

Seriously though, he's exhibit 'a' in the museum of ivory tower intellectuals so brilliant, but lacking the basics of emotional intelligence.

[Reisen]

This floored me...almost as much as seeing Professor Hough's picture in all of these articles. I honestly can't believe he has been standing in front of a classroom (hard to call it teaching) this long. In fairness, he was my professor in the spring semester of my senior year. So, I had more pressing things on my mind, like red cups and sleeping in. But, I've been telling stories about two professors since my time at Duke from the late 90s to the early 00s. The first, my career adviser, breast fed her baby during our career discussion. I'm laid back and understanding --- I would have been fine with this had their been a covering blanket but, there wasn't. My already poorly constructed life plans were all the more awkwardly articulated because I was forced to stutter through them in front of fully exposed nipple, then suckling babe, for most the meeting.

The other story is Professor Hough. He was the quintessential bumbling, brilliant, professor. He showed up, wispy hair combed over, telescope glasses perched on his nose, and immediately launched into rambling recollections of soviet era politicking. But, what reduced me to near giggles every time was his underwear. He'd tuck his wrinkled dress shirt DIRECTLY into his underwear. For whatever reason, his underwear bunched above his belt so that it appeared, while teaching, as if his midsection was held aloft by an underwear inter-tube. Unfortunately, this was not enough to keep me afloat in his class and I scrapped by with the grade an itinerant senior deserved.

Seriously though, he's exhibit 'a' in the museum of ivory tower intellectuals so brilliant, but lacking the basics of emotional intelligence.

Thanks for sharing. I took a fantastic course at Duke back in the late 90's; it was titled something like "The Three M's of Russia: Markets, Media, and Mafia". I'd have to believe Hough was involved, as they had a couple of different profs teaching, but I can't be sure. I do remember it was one of the neatest things I took at Duke.

[subzero02]

He's already planning to retire next year...2016.

Hopefully that can be pushed up a year. The sooner this [redacted text] is gone, the better.

[davekay1971]

Hopefully that can be pushed up a year. The sooner this [redacted text] is gone, the better.

The guy keeps talking, and I keep wanting to replay the scene from Anchorman: "Take it easy, Champ. Why don't you sit this next one out, stop talking for a while."

He did make one good point: the focus on sensitivity in language can, and does, take away from open discussion about issues. I am critical of Hough in this whole debacle - I think he's shown more ignorance and affinity for stereotypes than any real understanding of the issues at hand - but our society has moved firmly into the territory that certain people are simply not allowed to discuss certain issues. Any caucasian person discussing Ferguson or Baltimore is at risk of being called a racist if what he or she says is anything other than wholly sympathetic to the view of the protestors. That runs the risk of preventing well informed, well meaning people from adding useful thoughts to the discussion, which ultimately could hurt the African American communities simply because good ideas that could solve underlying issues may go unspoken. Critical analysis can be stilted when we become obsessed with sensitivity, "triggers", "white privilege" and "micro-aggressions". As a society, we've made tremendous advances in raising awareness of the evils of racism, both intended and unintended. But this can be carried too far, to the detriment of open and honest discussion, and Hough makes this point (very badly, and in the context of a torrent of racially insensitive stereotypes).

[Bostondevil]

The guy keeps talking, and I keep wanting to replay the scene from Anchorman: "Take it easy, Champ. Why don't you sit this next one out, stop talking for a while."

He did make one good point: the focus on sensitivity in language can, and does, take away from open discussion about issues. I am critical of Hough in this whole debacle - I think he's shown more ignorance and affinity for stereotypes than any real understanding of the issues at hand - but our society has moved firmly into the territory that certain people are simply not allowed to discuss certain issues. Any caucasian person discussing Ferguson or Baltimore is at risk of being called a racist if what he or she says is anything other than wholly sympathetic to the view of the protestors. That runs the risk of preventing well informed, well meaning people from adding useful thoughts to the discussion, which ultimately could hurt the African American communities simply because good ideas that could solve underlying issues may go unspoken. Critical analysis can be stilted when we become obsessed with sensitivity, "triggers", "white privilege" and "micro-aggressions". As a society, we've made tremendous advances in raising awareness of the evils of racism, both intended and unintended. But this can be carried too far, to the detriment of open and honest discussion, and Hough makes this point (very badly, and in the context of a torrent of racially insensitive stereotypes).

You've made the point quite eloquently. I disagree that such points can't be made by reasonable people. Does one have to temper outrage and the outrageous when discussing sensitive issues? Yes. Is that fair from a free speech standpoint? Probably not. Is free speech the most important thing to keep in mind when trying to discuss sensitive issues? I'll go with probably not again. Will anybody listen to well reasoned points made about race (or gender issues or guns or healthcare) that are not completely following the party line? I have to believe that answer is yes or what's the point? OK, nobody will listen to well reasoned points about guns - but everything else? Of course there are many out there just looking to take people down for thinking differently, even if only slightly, and the internet gives them a bigger voice, but I have to believe that opening a discussion is still possible.

.

[Duvall]

He did make one good point: the focus on sensitivity in language can, and does, take away from open discussion about issues. I am critical of Hough in this whole debacle - I think he's shown more ignorance and affinity for stereotypes than any real understanding of the issues at hand - but our society has moved firmly into the territory that certain people are simply not allowed to discuss certain issues. Any caucasian person discussing Ferguson or Baltimore is at risk of being called a racist if what he or she says is anything other than wholly sympathetic to the view of the protestors. That runs the risk of preventing well informed, well meaning people from adding useful thoughts to the discussion, which ultimately could hurt the African American communities simply because good ideas that could solve underlying issues may go unspoken.

[citation needed]

You are overestimating the practical value of said "useful thoughts," and underestimating the resilience of "caucasian persons" to find ways to express criticism of black people.

[Tom B.]

And Time would be correct that he's on leave, but not because of this incident. He was already on leave this year. Check out The Chronicle for quotes and more details.

Link.

[BD80]

And Time would be correct that he's on leave, but not because of this incident. He was already on leave this year. Check out The Chronicle for quotes and more details.

Ah, The Chronicle. Up there with The Bleacher Zone and TMZ in the ranks of journalism.

[gus]

Does anyone have a link to the NYTimes editorial about the Baltimore riots that the professor was complaining about? The link up above describes the NYTimes editorial as blaming the riots on white racism -- I don't know if that's what the editorial actually said. As a black Baltimore-bred writer pointed out, blaming the riots on white racism misses the point in a city with a black mayor, black city council president, black elected prosecutor, half black police force, majority black city populace, and long history of powerful black churches and black political leaders.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/10/op...baltimore.html

[gus]

The guy keeps talking, and I keep wanting to replay the scene from Anchorman: "Take it easy, Champ. Why don't you sit this next one out, stop talking for a while."

He did make one good point: the focus on sensitivity in language can, and does, take away from open discussion about issues. I am critical of Hough in this whole debacle - I think he's shown more ignorance and affinity for stereotypes than any real understanding of the issues at hand - but our society has moved firmly into the territory that certain people are simply not allowed to discuss certain issues. Any caucasian person discussing Ferguson or Baltimore is at risk of being called a racist if what he or she says is anything other than wholly sympathetic to the view of the protestors. That runs the risk of preventing well informed, well meaning people from adding useful thoughts to the discussion, which ultimately could hurt the African American communities simply because good ideas that could solve underlying issues may go unspoken. Critical analysis can be stilted when we become obsessed with sensitivity, "triggers", "white privilege" and "micro-aggressions". As a society, we've made tremendous advances in raising awareness of the evils of racism, both intended and unintended. But this can be carried too far, to the detriment of open and honest discussion, and Hough makes this point (very badly, and in the context of a torrent of racially insensitive stereotypes).

I don't actually find it very hard to discuss race without making racist statements, and I've often been in discussions with people I disagree with who manage the same thing. I'm surely not alone in that. In my experience those most likely to be mortified at the accusation of racism are usually... well, saying something racist. For example, if ones argument involves saying "the Asians" experienced the same discrimination in the 60s as "the blacks", but "the Asian"'s effort to integrate is apparent in the "old American" names they choose and that "the amount of Asian-white dating is enormous"... well, let's just say I have confidence in your ability to not be that [insert whatever demeaning characterization you prefer...], and I've never met you. Feel free to have these discussions; they're important. And if someone suggests something you said is racist, ask them why. Don't end the conversation with cries about political correctness.