March 7, 2007

What the Professor Said

As soon as they started to appear, the quotes seemed remarkably offensive: “Hmong women are better off now that Hmong men are dying off in this country” or “all Hmong men purchase their wives, so if he wants to have sex with his wife and she doesn’t consent, you and I call it rape, but the Hmong guy is thinking, ‘man, I paid too much for her.’ ” The remarks were attributed to Leonard V. Kaplan, a professor of law at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

Looking for a job?

See all 206 new postings

Browse all job listings:

Faculty: 2,554
Administrative: 2,163
Executive: 162
FEATURED EMPLOYERS

On Monday, Kaplan sent his dean a detailed letter on his version of what happened in class that day. In it, he explains what he remembers saying about the Hmong, why he did so, and also what he didn’t say. Generally, Kaplan denies saying some of the things attributed to him, and explains a context for what he did say — a context that leaves a completely different impression from the quotes that were in circulation for a week, as the dean issued an apology for the hurt the incident had caused, the law school held various forums for students to express their anger, and the Wisconsin press (and this Web site) covered the dispute.

The facts of what actually happened in class that day remain in dispute — the students who circulated the original report on the comments aren’t talking except to tell local reporters that they aren’t happy with Kaplan’s response. A university spokesman said Tuesday that discussions with students in the class have indicated “contradictory” views of what was said and that there is no known tape of the session. The spokesman said that the university is discussing the situation and that Kaplan is teaching his courses. Professors who know Kaplan and some of his former students have characterized his version of the class as far more credible than the students’ complaint, and some students who were in the class have said that the alleged anti-Hmong comments weren’t made in the way that was originally reported or in a manner that was bigoted.

As the picture has started to change, some are questioning whether the incident raises issues about academic freedom, tolerance and the challenges of speaking about race and ethnicity in the classroom.

Kaplan’s letter — while firm in denying that he said the hateful things attributed to him — is also notably restrained and reflective for a man who has been pilloried for a week. A lawyer who also has a Ph.D. in psychology, Kaplan has focused on both law and mental health, and his reply begins by talking about all he has learned in the last week or so about Hmong culture and the challenges the Hmong have encountered. The letter closes with the statement: “I have come to a new awareness of how the statements I did make could be misunderstood and of the pain that this experience has caused. I acknowledge that pain and regret the part that my own limitations played in contributing to it.”

In the body of his letter, however, Kaplan says that the class he was teaching — part of a course on the legal process — focused on the difficulties facing displaced ethnic groups in the liberal state. He discussed Muslims in Amsterdam, Pakistanis in London, and Algerians in Paris, among others. Then, he writes, “to bring the discussion closer to home,” he discussed the Hmong resettlement in the United States.

Kaplan then proceeds to explain how things attributed to him may relate to what he says he actually said. For example, the students’ e-mail says that he said “Hmong men have no skills other than killing.” Kaplan writes that he did not say that at all, but that he did comment that many first generation Hmong immigrants died prematurely and that one possible explanation was that they “suffered from a loss of meaning as a result of their changed status in the United States.”

On the comment about Hmong men and rape, Kaplan writes as follows: “I did in fact refer to instances in the United States where a Hmong man arranged a marriage with the father of a young Hmong woman, without her knowledge or consent, by paying a ‘bride price.’ Actual cases arose out of such arrangements in which the Hmong man was charged with rape for engaging in marital relations. In an effort to highlight the imperfections of legal formalism, and not to denigrate any cultural practice, I made an ironic comment that those who pay a price for a bride and are charged with rape may believe that they have paid too much.”

The letter notes that while Kaplan has been accused of saying that second generation Hmong immigrants are involved in gangs and crime, he remembers saying that the Hmong and many other second generation immigrants (of all ethnicities) see such increases.

In his letter, Kaplan stresses that he is not trying to hide behind academic freedom. “Had I made the hateful comments wrongly attributed to me, I would repudiate them without hesitation. I did not make them,” he writes.

As the controversy has continued to play out, some have raised concerns about academic freedom. A group of faculty members called the Committee for Academic Freedom and Rights issued a statement (before Kaplan issued his letter): “There is a fundamental distinction between causing offense gratuitously and invidiously, and causing offense as the by-product of the fair-minded pursuit of truth or constructive criticism. A university of the caliber of UW-Madison, with its long history and tradition of protecting academic freedom in the ‘fearless sifting and winnowing of ideas’ for the pursuit of truth, must take this distinction seriously, lest it surrenders its intellectual integrity.”

The statement continued: “We fear, however, that the crucial distinction between gratuitous offense and provocative argument has been lost in the public furor over the Kaplan case. We are dismayed at the law school’s public response to this dispute, as it has addressed only the school’s commitment to sensitivity and diversity, while saying nothing about that institution’s fiduciary obligation to train minds to grapple with various sides of controversial and difficult issues. Without serious consideration of the importance and meaning of academic freedom on campus among the members of the university community, how can freedom prevail in the face of pressures from both left and right to make universities conform to one or another model of political correctness? We urge that the principles of academic freedom and fairness be a serious part of our community’s response to the allegations that have been made concerning Professor Kaplan.”

Jonathan Knight, who directs the program in academic freedom and tenure for the American Association of University Professors, said that disputes like the one at Wisconsin do have the potential to raise issues of academic freedom — especially if there is a rush to judgment. “Plainly administrators should take seriously what students complain about, and see if there is merit about it,” he said. But “restraint in public statements” is ideal, even given the pressure to speak out against statements viewed as racist or sexist, he said.

Certain kinds of statements “trigger fast reactions,” Knight said. “There have been occasions when the reactions were well founded,” he said. “But there have been others that were not well founded or were somehow in between, so a dose of prudence and caution is always useful.”

Knight said he was not bothered by administrators acknowledging the pain felt by those offended by something alleged to have been said — the pain being real even if the person never said the words in question. But Knight said he worried about holding forums for people to express their pain when the facts were still being gathered, as happened at Wisconsin. “That can create its own dynamics, which is a problem,” he said. “In creating a forum, inevitably that will suggest that there is a real problem. The forum is not being held to discuss a perception, but what seems to be a reality i.e. that someone has said something that is racist or sexist or vilely offensive.”

He added that while it is “laudable for administrators to pay heed to community sentiments, that can come at a quick and high cost to the sense of freedom necessary for faculty to teach controversial and sensitive subjects.”

Other experts said that they hoped the dispute would not discourage discussion of race, but might lead professors to talk at the beginning of a course about what to do if something offends — encouraging discussion before incidents escalate. “All of us have misinformation about people different from ourselves. That’s just inevitable because most people grow up in homogeneous communities, so it shouldn’t surprise any of us when someone says something that we may think reflects stereotypes,” said Beverly Daniel Tatum, president of Spelman College and author of the forthcoming Can We Talk About Race?

Tatum said that as a professor, she taught courses for years on the psychology of racism and that she wanted frank discussion from students. She would begin the course by saying “we are all here trying to learn and none of us is perfect,” and talking about the importance of honesty in discussions. The idea, Tatum said, was to create an environment in which she and her students could say what they believed, and challenge one another’s views in the classroom. “I’m not trying to give people permission to be intentionally insensitive, but you need to acknowledge that we are all works in progress,” she said.

While Tatum said she didn’t know the details of the Wisconsin situation, she said she wasn’t surprised. “My best guess is that certainly many faculty members do not set that kind of context at the beginning of the semester and then they end up talking about something that is politically or emotionally volatile and you find yourself wishing you had said that at the beginning,” she said. In such a scenario where a professor has talked about the possibility for offense, the offended students might have asked about their concerns immediately, and might have been reassured.

Talking about the way we talk about controversy, Tatum said, also helps create another condition for frank discussion: “We need to have generosity of spirit when we encounter something that offends us because we could be the next ones to say something.”

— Scott Jaschik

Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Comments

Can we discuss difficult issues

Beverly Tatum makes some very good points in this article. The biggest is that if we are going to talk about race it is important to speak honestly about it and it is important to recognize that honest discussions may make us uncomfortable.

I think she has hit on a problem that is at the heart of many of the discussions on this website.

A lot of people insist that we talk about issues of race, gender and ethnicity but when people say what they honestly feel they don’t like what they hear. In most cases this problem is met by a variety of ways that students and others are told what scripts to follow to avoid offending people.

What I like about Beverly Tatum’s comments is that I think she realizes that if you want to change people you have to start from where they are and you have to let people feel comfortable enough with themselves and the environment of the classroom to open up and share their feelings.

I’m not sure you can do this. I think it takes a person of extraordinary ability to make this work. And I think the whole enterprise is questionable since you are asking students to open themselves up to levels of vulnerability that are more appropriate to a therapy session than a college classroom.

Look at how few people who comment on issues of race and diversity on this website feel comfortable enough to post their comments under their own name. Now consider putting students in a classroom three times a week where they are anything but anonymous and not only will some of their most personal feelings on very volatile subjects be open to public scrutiny, they will be judged by a teacher and graded on them.

There are many areas of the university where discussions on race can take place without these problems. American history needs to be studied and race is intricately involved in much of it from the declaration of independence and the constitution to the debates over slavery, reconstruction and civil rights law. Likewise, literature is an area of study where it is natural to study works of African American authors and books which deal with questions of race.

But when you start trying to tell people how they are supposed to feel and what they are supposed to think you are beginning to tread on difficult ground. This is particularly true as regards contemporary issues.

A student gets a question on a test to show how Katrina illustrates that America doesn’t care about people who are poor and black. What if he disagrees with that? Is he wrong? Does he get a zero for disputing that assertion?

What about affirmative action? Are students racists if they are opposed to it or even some of it?

Are conflicts between men and women rooted in male demands for domination? What if your experiences don’t support that? People will bring a lifetime of experience and a ton of emotion to any discussion of sexuality. Most people experience a fair amount of rejection and disappointment in their relations with the opposite sex. It’s probably as true for men as it is for women. If you talk about women’s suffrage or job discrimination there are no serious obstacles to open discussions. But when you get into areas that touch on sexuality and the very personal emotions that go with it, people are bringing a lot of experience to the discussion, some of it very painful.

Once again, what makes this all very personal and problematic is when you want to make the individual student and his or her feelings the focus of the class. When the point of the class is for people to have correct opinions of gender issues, you are intruding on a dimension of life that probably doesn’t belong in a college classroom.

Jonathan Cohen, Professor of Mathematics at DePaul University, at 7:25 am EST on March 7, 2007

Personal Feelings

Professor Cohen, I tend to agree with you that making a student’s personal feelings a part of the class discussion is a bad idea, but that is not what appears to have happened in the UW case.

I’m currently teaching a course in the literature of American popular music & we inevitably deal with both sexually & racially loaded material. I do make this clear at the start of the class, but that is only the first step. It is possible, by taking both students and the subject matter seriously to discuss such emotionally difficult issues in an intellectual, historical, and cultural context. It does take careful thought on the part of the instructor, but if we don’t discuss such issues in the classroom, then where should we discuss them?

As for your examples at the end of your thoughtful post about test questions based on assumptions about Katrina or Affirmative Action, I would say that those are badly designed test questions. How about “What does the federal response to Hurricane Katrina demonstrate about the government’s attitudes and priorities?” (It would be possible to write an acceptable response beginning with “Nothing.”

Finally, recent experience teaches me that what most students who object to “affirmative action” know about the subject is very close to nothing. I’ve had two conversations with students this semester in which their objections to AA turned out to be based on grotesque caricatures of actual policies and laws. In other words, what they “know” about this subject is simply, factually wrong. It is a teacher’s job, when possible, to correct such misunderstanding and to replace ignorance with knowledge.

Joseph Duemer, Professor at Clarkson Universitry, at 8:25 am EST on March 7, 2007

Of course

” .. It is a teacher’s job, when possible, to correct such misunderstanding and to replace ignorance with knowledge ..”

Yes, of course — Larry Summers deserved everything he graciously received from certain political groups. How dare anyone think otherwise?

When merely citing facts can provoke outrage by the Sean Penn crowd —

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7379440

it is no wonder that the USA’s decline is feared.

Leonard Washington, at 9:05 am EST on March 7, 2007

Not ready for prime time students

What I find strange about this discussion is that it took place in the context of a fairly common legal discussion. (In law professors darkest hearts, they know that most law school courses do not differ too much between law schools.)

Lawyers, for better or worse, are trained to address difficult issues head-on. If some lawyer refused to do something because they were “offended” by a position taken by a client or someone else, they would be laughed at. Or fired. A large portion of law students will, in the next few years, be called upon to 1) put people in jail that support their families; 2) defend people that, even if innocent, have nothing in common culturally with a law student; or 3) represent clients that are likely hurting the world. But, this is what lawyers do.

I expected to see this kind of crap in an undergraduate anthropology or political science courses, where kids can delivery applause lines by saying “I am offended.” Instead, these students demonstrated that, denouncing the professor that they are not quite ready to represent people that have far more repugnant interests than any idea presented (or, apparently not presented) for discussion.

Larry, at 10:55 am EST on March 7, 2007

Law Schools Not Exempt

Despite the fact that Larry-the-Lawyer seems shocked and amazed to learn that such thin-skinned students exist in a law school class, he should revisit some of the strictures and guidelines that the ABA has set for law school accreditation.

The ABA embraces and coddles all the muddle-minded P.C. notions about student sensibilities, recommends that law school admission offices fiddle with admit requirements to get a certain racial or ethnic or gender mix among the students, and then kowtow to the tender fears or vulnerability of its students, lest they hear some opinions, words or perspectives that “offend” them.

The “kind of crap” that Larry imagines goes on only in undergraduate anthro or poli sci classes is alive and well in most law schools.

As part of its perverse and odious embrace of racial or gender double standards, the ABA steadfastly opposed citizen initiatives in California, Washington, and Michigan that terminated such deceptive and dishonest practices.

Lawyer — cleanse thy own house first.

Chuck, at 12:01 pm EST on March 7, 2007

4th Rush to Judgment Case

This is yet another case arguing for a rational, non-emotional approach to campus crises. The Duke Lacrosse “Rape”, the Guilford “Brass Knuckle Attack”, the Kent State professor’s “Private Jihad Website”, and now this incident have all been cases where calm evaluation of the facts later revealed that events that were a bit different than originally thought.

While all the facts aren’t in yet, it is clear that events in every case weren’t as originally painted. The rush to judgment covered a wide range of political views.

Wait until the facts are in is always a good policy.

stm60, UConn, at 1:26 pm EST on March 7, 2007

Thanks, Prof Duemer, for your thoughtful response, though I must disagree with you. Specifically, you say

“I’m not sure you can do this. I think it takes a person of extraordinary ability to make this work. And I think the whole enterprise is questionable since you are asking students to open themselves up to levels of vulnerability that are more appropriate to a therapy session than a college classroom.”

My disagreement with your point is that opening oneself up to difficult ideas and grappling with them in a difficult and meaningful way is the entire point of a college education.

It should not be the case that a discussion about race should be more or less difficult than a discussion of ethics, religion, or historical power struggles. All of these topics are of a personal nature — that is why we call those disciplines that deal with such questions ‘Humanities,’ after all. The problem that has arisen is that we have improperly shifted certain topics from being “global” to being “personal.” But I would argue that the personal is the global — what affects one person’s life is liable to affect another’s, even if their interpretation and reaction is different. For that reason, saying that “I am offended” is an inappropriate way to attempt to end a discussion because it assumes that the offended is the only person with a right to, or the expertise for, the topic at hand.

What is useful about Tatum’s approach is that it takes away the students’ ability to improperly trump a discussion by saying “I am offended” and brings them back into the realms of learning, scholarship, and citizenship. It forces them to articulate why they are offended, which, though it does have to be carefully managed to keep from devolving into a “therapy session,” forces them to engage in discussion and look within themselves, and outside of themselves, to understand how these forces affect people in the world. In other words, it forces them to evaluate their position and hold it up to scrutiny, not merely state it as fact and walk away. It forces them to be students.

Likewise, at least as I interpret it, Tatum’s approach suggests that there are right or wrong methods. But, if the proper method is followed, there are no right or wrong solutions. Dialogue — correct method. Sticking fingers in ears and chanting “lalalalala I can’t hear you!!!” — incorrect method.

In this model, if students...or faculty...are still afraid of putting down the “wrong answer,” then we have failed to teach them how to be students and faculty. We have failed to teach scholarship.

A. Turner, at 2:11 pm EST on March 7, 2007

Aw, heck, that should have said, “Thanks, Prof Cohen...” I totally agree with Duemer.

A. Turner, at 2:26 pm EST on March 7, 2007

Sauce for the goose

“There is a fundamental distinction between causing offense gratuitously and invidiously, and causing offense as the by-product of the fair-minded pursuit of truth or constructive criticism.”

Only in cases dealing with people we like. Ask Larry Summers.

chris b, at 3:06 pm EST on March 7, 2007

Priviledged Axioms

“Tatum said that as a professor, she taught courses for years on the psychology of racism and that she wanted frank discussion from students. She would begin the course by saying ‘we are all here trying to learn and none of us is perfect,’”

But how will the good professor respond if a student is offended by this statement? How DARE she assert that I’m not perfect? Who is she to judge me to be imperfect in this manner? The source of her statement (which is merely a premise, because it cannot be proved) is ultimately rooted in the Christian perspective of a fallen nature of humankind. So clearly her class is nothing but an attempt to legitimize the oppressive status quo, and since she asked for honesty, I’ll speak “truth to power” by denouncing her. And if I get a grade of less than an “A” in her class it must be because she retaliated against me for doing so.

chris b, at 4:00 pm EST on March 7, 2007

UW and Hmong

Students may be mis-, mal-, or un-educated about various issues. But believe it that some know the awesome power of claiming to have been offended.

Richard Aubrey, at 5:50 pm EST on March 7, 2007

Prof Kaplan and Hmong

1. Regarding that Professor Kaplan intended to make a few good points in his lecture (about Hmong men, Hmong cultural marriage and the law, the failure of Wisconsin to help Hmong youths away from gangs, etc): Why did the professor have to use a few insulting, derogatory, snide, bad words first in order to make a few good points after?

B B, at 6:10 am EST on March 8, 2007

let it go

BB, you asked:

“Why did the professor have to use a few insulting, derogatory, snide, bad words first in order to make a few good points after?”

Maybe he wasn’t sufficiently sensitive to how people would perceive his comments as being insulting, derogatory, etc. His letter basically says that. But based on the early accounts of what the professor supposedly said, it seems to me that some are attempting to use the whole incident in the service of a broader agenda to exert power. I don’t have any evidence that this is part of your purpose, but I am somewhat puzzled that it seems so hard for so many people to grant the professor the presumption of good will.

chris b, at 10:20 am EST on March 8, 2007

Let’s hold off on judgment

B B

It appears that perhaps the professor did not use degrading or crass statements at all. I suggest we wait for further information before we beat this guy up any more.

stm60, UConn, at 11:05 am EST on March 8, 2007

“While Tatum said she didn’t know the details of the Wisconsin situation, she said she wasn’t surprised. “My best guess is that certainly many faculty members do not set that kind of context at the beginning of the semester and then they end up talking about something that is politically or emotionally volatile and you find yourself wishing you had said that at the beginning,” she said.In such a scenario where a professor has talked about the possibility for offense, the offended students might have asked about their concerns immediately, and might have been reassured.”

I suppose such an approach might be appropriate in middle school, but in college or law school? I think we need to have higher expectations of students, not lower ones ... and to treat with the shortest shrift possible those who get upset at the use of the word “niggardly” (as an undergrad did at the UW) or when a law school prof describes an unmarried couple as being in a “meretricious relationship” (as happened in my T&E course at UW law, a long time ago). College may be an imitation of life, but I think it should be a better one than it seems to have become. I fear for the academic career of my 16-y-o daughter, who is made of far sterner stuff than these shrinking violets.

Gene Rankin, retired lawyer, at 11:10 am EST on March 8, 2007

Mr. Rankin, I made much the same points that you did earlier, but someone told me that law schools are havens for the “I am offended” crowd. (This person proudly admits to not going to law school.) But, to be specific, law schools – not undergraduate institutions – have little tolerance for “offense” because most students see student offense as a just preening for the “cameras.” Every minute that is taken to comfort some offended student, is one less minute that a student can learn how to do well on the final.

The few law students dumb enough to scream “I am offended” are generally mocked, and if their statements are put on the internet, they will be branded for life as unable to handle the gritty underbelly of society that the law is supposed to provide order to.

Larry, at 2:10 pm EST on March 8, 2007

Hmong these truths we hold ...

Regardless of what was said in this or any other instance, the practice of requiring a teacher to recall and regurgitate what might have been said in a classroom is already a guarantee of the destruction of freedom of speech. Forfeiture of open, freewheeling expression in deference to fear of risking offense is a preposterous tradeoff. But it is the deal American “higher” education has made.

John C. Bonnell, Professor of English at Macomb Comm. College, at 2:55 pm EST on March 8, 2007

Professor Kaplan’s Error

I agree with much of the above commentary supporting free enquiry into topics pertinent to course subjects. Nevertheless, some of the soul-searching, hand-wringing unease evidently shown by official UW courtiers about the “incident” IS truly amusing to read. I do disagree with Professor Duemer’s remarks about students opposed to AA; my experience is PRECISELY the opposite, and considering that students and faculty must endure a routine avalanche of official diversity/multi-culti propaganda at university, students and faculty who demur about AA have generally informed themselves about the issues rather well.

But wouldn’t Professor Kaplan have been on firmer ground at a university the “caliber” of UW if he’d merely dabbled in anti-Christian bigotry and treasonous asides?

Jacques Albert, at 9:01 am EST on March 10, 2007

Jobs Related to What the Professor Said

or search for jobs directly.

Faculty: Temp Instructor- Sci & Tech
Fairmont State University

Fairmont State University and Pierpont Community & Technical College, with a 120-acre main campus in Fairmont, WV, is part of ... see job

Data Management Analyst
University of California, Riverside

The University of California Riverside invests in your future through employee training and career development, access to ... see job

Manager, Business
Lone Star College System

Located just north of Houston, Texas, our five campuses serve 1,400 square miles. Our student enrollment is nearly 50,000 in ... see job

Data Management Support II — Gift, ADR
Princeton University

Position Summary: The primary function of this position is to provide support to the Office of Alumni and ... see job

Professor, Department of Radiological Sciences
University of California, Irvine

Position: Professor in Residence Professor of Clinical X Health Sciences Clinical Professor Full-time professorial position ... see job

Faculty Position- Department of Exercise and Sport Science
Azusa Pacific University

Azusa Pacific University seeks applications for Department of Exercise and Sport Science. see job

Faculty, Information Systems
Suffolk University

Position Summary: The Sawyer Business School at Suffolk University seeks faculty candidates who can deliver ... see job

GIS Analyst
University of South Carolina

A leader in academe, the University of South Carolina holds the Carnegie Foundation’s highest research designation and is ... see job

Lab Technician, PT LAPL (FY09-08)
College of Southern Maryland

The Lab Assistant is responsible for weekly preparation of matterials and set ups for all biology, chemistry, geology and ... see job

Marketing Coordinator (112123)
Northeastern University

Northeastern University, founded in 1898 and located in Boston, is a private research university that is a leader in ... see job