Search News


Browse Archives

News

The (Pro)-White Professor

June 17, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

A tenured professor who has taught education classes at the University of Vermont for nearly 40 years has written extensively and sympathetically about white nationalism, drawing fire from civil rights groups but support from his institution in the name of academic freedom.

The Times Argus reported Sunday that Robert S. Griffin has authored several books and articles that are widely read by white nationalists, neo-Nazis and other extremists. In 2001, Griffin self-published The Fame of a Dead Man's Deeds: An Up-Close Portrait of White Nationalist William Pierce, a biography of the late National Alliance leader who hoped to establish an all-white "living space" in the United States and Europe. William Pierce's novel The Turner Diaries in part inspired Timothy McVeigh to carry out the Oklahoma City bombing.

On his Web site, Griffin describes Pierce as "a person of remarkable capability, decency, integrity, courage, and dedication," adding, "This book changed my life forever. I came away from my encounter with Pierce far more conscious of race from a white perspective and of myself as a white man and of my European cultural and historical roots."

In addition to his other books -- among them One Sheaf, One Vine: Racially Conscious White People Talk About Race and Living White: Writings on Race, 2000-2005 -- the professor has penned dozens of articles on the subject of white nationalism. They include "When They Attack," written last year, which offers "advice to those who care about white people and their future in a culture that is committed to shutting them down hard and hurting them." Such advice includes "Get in the best shape you can: Figure you are in a war. Get battleready," and "Don’t buy what they tell you about yourself: The people doing the talking in this country tell you that being for minorities is good but being for whites is bad, that you are bad, that they are the action and you should kowtow to them and keep quiet over in the corner."

Griffin -- who stated emphatically in an e-mail that he is not a racist and that he deplores violence -- makes no attempt to hide his views on bolstering white society. On the University of Vermont's Web site, Griffin's areas of expertise are listed as: "Traditionalist, or non-Progressive, approaches to teaching; the media, including computer technology; the personal wellbeing of educators and other helping professionals; the status of European heritage, or white Americans, including the way they are educated." According to the site, he earned his master's and doctoral degrees at the University of Minnesota in 1967 and 1973, respectively. He joined the University of Vermont faculty in 1974.

On his personal Web site, he writes, "I do not consider myself to be a racial writer, as it were. I write whatever is there to be written, and if it is about race, so be it, but I don't consider myself linked to that subject." However, he links to several extremist Web sites, including the National Alliance and White Revolution, whose home page says, "We must secure the existence of our people, and a future for White children." Another link goes to the Vanguard News Network, whose slogan is "No Jews. Just Right."

As director of research for the Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights organization, Heidi Beirich says there is "no mystery" in her mind that Griffin is a neo-Nazi. "It's an amazing thing to see a tenured professor at a serious university writing a fawning biography of a neo-Nazi nut -- just shocking," she said. She urged the institution to investigate the professor's classroom activities and condemn his work.

But Griffin said via e-mail that Beirich's declaration that "Dr. Griffin is a neo-Nazi," as reported in the Times Argus, is "absolutely untrue." Griffin also vehemently denied Beirich's suggestion that he "certainly ran in the same circles as" James von Brunn, the man charged with a shooting at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum last week. The professor noted that "even the most cursory review of my writings would show that I deplore violence."

As for Daniel Barlow, the journalist who initially reported on the professor, Griffin wrote in an e-mail, "I don't know Barlow at all, but I think he is a relatively recent graduate of Keene State University, and if he is like most university students he has been immersed in the teachings of professors like James Loewen. That is to say, he has been conditioned to assume that any expression of white racial identity, concern, commitment, solidarity, organization, advocacy, or activism must be racist, anti-Semitic, neo-Nazi, violent, evil."

The University of Vermont is obligated to protect its faculty's views in the interest of preserving academic freedom, said Enrique Corredera, a spokesman. No formal complaints have been filed against Griffin to date, he said.

For any form of speech to violate the campus's rules of conduct, Corredera said it would have to "incite violence," "be inflammatory against individuals" or "have the potential to pose a threat to specific individuals or members of our community at large." He would not comment on Griffin's work specifically.

Other campuses have faced disputes over controversial statements made by faculty members. In 2006, Arthur Butz, a tenured associate professor of electrical engineering and computer science at Northwestern University, drew heat when his status as a prominent Holocaust denier resurfaced. The university president denounced Butz but affirmed his right to free expression.

David Shiman, a professor at the University of Vermont, differs from Beirich in his view of Griffin. Shiman, who is Jewish, said that in the 35 years he has known his colleague he has "never seen from him an anti-Semitic remark, never heard him make a racist remark."

Several years ago, Shiman assigned Griffin's 2001 article "Rearing Honorable White Children" in some of his multicultural education classes and brought in the author to field students' questions. Griffin's work may be provocative and unorthodox, he said, but such views are the stuff of learning and debate.

"It certainly brings a perspective to multicultural issues that is different from what dominates the field," Shiman said, adding that he does not agree with Griffin's views. "I think the students need to hear diverse perspectives, need to challenge themselves and be exposed to views that cause them to reflect on the views they think they hold -- and maybe get stronger holding them, but at least challenge themselves."

Of the more than 10,000 students who make up the University of Vermont, 92 percent are white. Rising junior Melena Saddler, president of the Black Student Union, said she would "probably feel awkward" in one of Griffin's classes after reading his essays. She added, "I kind of understand that it is a predominantly white school and a predominantly white state and a lot of things aren't going to be easy."

"Everyone has an opinion, but as a teacher you kind of are representing the student body. You should always be objective and open to different ideas," she said. "I do think it is a problem he is on campus, but in a way I'm pretty much not surprised -- most people don't let go of past feelings when it comes to slavery and stuff like that."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on The (Pro)-White Professor

  • Posted by G. Tod Slone on June 17, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • Because this is an especially tough subject, I’m going to comment here. I am a white man. To say that in itself actually sounds taboo. That’s how perverted America has become. I do believe in equality and am not racist. Because I’ve criticized black people now and then, I have been called racist. Yet I’ve criticized far more whites than blacks. As a professor by profession, I do think I’ve been dismissed as a viable candidate for at least several positions because of my race, and that does anger me. On one occasion for the Univ. of Connecticutt, I went through the interview stage only to be told later that the dean had decided the pool of candidates was insufficiently diverse, so reopened the position. Wasting my time like that angered me. Why do academics have such a difficult time being honest? Why not just state: No white males need apply. Or candidates over 50 will likely not be considered for the position. On another occasion, a Mongolian with a green card was kept in a position at a public university, while I was not given a new contract. The position was in French and I was certainly more qualified than her, having spent seven years in France, as compared to her month and even had a doctorate from a French university. She did not. However, she was a much better bureaucrat than I, and I had been critical of certain things at the institution, including the religious séances held at each faculty meeting.

     

    I like what Griffin says: "Get in the best shape you can: Figure you are in a war. Get battleready," and "Don’t buy what they tell you about yourself.” I too have kept myself in top physical shape because of the constant battling I do with academics and poets and editors. No heart attack for me!

     

    Hopefully, a backlash is currently brewing regarding Affirmative Action and PC diversity. I do hope it begins boiling before it’s too late. It is time we begin treating people equally. I am not a white supremacist. I am for equality. Academe has become so perverted today that it doesn’t know what that means any more. Criticize PC and the current status quo and be dismissed as a right winger. No need for PC types to even examine the points you make. That has become academe. America and academe would rather give a job to an illegal immigrant than to me, an American citizen without criminal record. That is what I am feeling today. BTW, I am 60, unemployed, and voted only once in my life... for Ralph Nader in 2000.
    G. Tod Slone

    www.theamericandissident.org

  • The (Pro) White Professor
  • Posted by PG , Faculty on June 17, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • White people appear to be having an identity crisis. They appear to be in fear of "others" emerging. Why does it seem that white identity is often based on the hatred, supression, and even the obliteration of others? This is not an indictment of all white people, but those who feel that other races are a threat to their existence seem obsessively paranoid to the point of insanity. The professor feels the need to "prepare" his people for battle. WHY? Is it really genetic annihilation that they are afraid of?

  • Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
  • Posted by kgotthardt on June 17, 2009 at 10:00am EDT
  • --deep breath--

    I am going to try to hold my temper, but it will not be easy.

    First, let no one misunderstand what I am about to say. Griffin has as much right to express himself as anyone else.

    But then, pornographers also have that right. So do serial killers and anarchists and members of drug cartels.

    So free speech isn't the issue here.

    The issue is racism.

    Griffin has every right to be a racist and a proponent of neo-Nazis. But when he denies being racist and says he hates violence all the while using words that promote war, we have the right to assess him as a deluded, possibly dangerous, liar (i.e. "Figure you are in a war. Get battleready").

    We are not talking about someone who has gone off on a rant or two. We are not talking about someone who has let some idiocies slip or who mutters under his breath or even about someone who really does want to preserve the better part of Eurpoean culture. We are talking about someone who has devoted himself to promoting one race over another by advocating at the very least, separatism.

    Look at this one quote from his article "Rearing Honorable White Children":

    "Rap music does bring black outlooks and values to young white people. Indeed, it blends the races, as does pop music generally. Clearly, to Talk magazine as well as most others in America, this is a good thing, but for whites who want to maintain their racial and cultural identity, what happened at that concert was not a good thing at all. They will do everything they can to keep their children out of Dr. Dre’s audience."

    So shall we assume black people should do everything they can to keep their children out of a Nickelback concert? Shall we revert to separate drinking fountains?

    Since I live in Prince William County VA where we have a local group that has been endorsed by the KKK (though the group leader denies connections to the KKK), I have very little patience for the kinds of lies, racism, hatred and unrest people (and groups) like this man foster. I've seen what it can do to a county. I cannot even imagine the level of toxicity his beliefs bring to the microcosm of a campus.

    Can he be fired? Probably not.

    Should people let it be known his public racism is deplorable?

    You bet.

    Should we be concerend about violence?

    Absolutely.

    Let's not kid ourselves. People don't consistently espouse beliefs without acting out on them. In fact, I would be surprised if he hasn't acted on them already, but someone out there was just too intimidated to do anything about it.

    I have to go now. My blood pressure just went up about 20 points.

  • How to judge a man
  • Posted by T on June 17, 2009 at 10:00am EDT
  • You can judge a man by the company he keeps.

  • Great article, but still missing ...
  • Posted by Jessie Daniels , Associate Professor, UPH at Hunter College on June 17, 2009 at 10:30am EDT
  • Thanks for this article. It's important for people to know about Griffin and his views. There's still something missing in this analysis here, and that is an analysis of power and white privilege. These have everything to do with knowledge.

    More here, in this post:
    http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2009/06/17/white-prof-white-pride/

  • He keeps company with...
  • Posted on June 17, 2009 at 11:15am EDT
  • The first link on this guys website is for Amren.com which has a deplorable article about Hurricane Katrina including this quote "The Superdome and the Convention Center were certainly unpleasant places to spend three or four days, but 50,000 whites would have behaved completely differently. They would have established rules, organized supplies, cared for the sick and dying. They would have organized games for children. The papers would be full of stories of selflessness and community spirit.

    Natural disasters usually bring out the best in people. They help neighbors and strangers alike. For blacks—at least the lower-class blacks of New Orleans—disaster was an excuse to loot, rob, rape and kill. " Amren.com

    We certainly can judge him by the company he keeps!

  • Judging How we deal with difficult Issues
  • Posted by Shirley Browning , Prof Economcis at UNC Asheville on June 17, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
  • Ok another white male here (live with the first name as I have - Proudly so) -

    I do not like what Griffin has to say, but as most (I hope) who read his writings or listen to his commentary I respect his right to express his opinion, and judgment based on his interpretation of data, other writings, etc. I do not have to agree just because he says something; but exposure is better than exclusion.  It is also the case that students (humans in general) need to be in touch with multiple positions to be fully educated.  I hope no one believes that just because they may write or say something in class or lecture all listeners / readers will automatically agree?!  We are very lucky in that we are free to accept, reject, question, ideas, positions, etc. and to even change our opinions and beliefs over time as a result of exposure to compelling presentations.  We may fear the idea that someone may accept an idea counter to our own; but then maybe we did not make the case? Or possibly we do not totally accept diversity at all levels of the human experience; and sometimes wisely so, e.g, universal rejection of racism seems to me to be a good thing. But even then each generation, and ongoing generations benefit from a diverse set of opinions. Lets not let fear of an opinion cause us to do something equally dumb.

    What bothers me after nearly as many years in Higher Education as Griffin is the polarization and tendency toward either patronization, exclusion, or anger over anyone within the academy who, correctly or by error of intellect, openly differs with the so called "norm" (what ever that may mean) in discourse, no matter the topic.  If you differ from someone rely on your professional skills to offer a different position.  Let the audience hear, read,  and assess.  You will not always win, but there is no need to be discourteous, or devalue the process by personal invective or attacks; and even worse censure or elimination of the irritating / frustrating source.  Try to take the high ground, of if you can not remain on the sideline until you can do so.  Then there will be value and impact from your comment (a hard lesson I continue to try to learn but I have to admit to straying even after all these years.)

    All that said I do not think I will prepare for yet another war; we have enough going on as it is. If someone is for peace, best they talk peace, or at least try to do so.

  • Voltaire said it best...
  • Posted by Beth on June 17, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT
  • Many may find his ideas abhorrent (I do), but...

    I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. ~Voltaire

    If we take away his rights to free speech, we lose our own.

  • Posted by Teresa on June 17, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
  • As a African American woman, I believe that it is important for any person to preserve his or her culture, so if Griffin wants to preserve the finer points of his "culture" that is fine.  However, he must recognize that much of "white culture" obtains from the assertion of power and violence over cultures that is "others."  So to say he is "not racist" is a cop out of large proportions. He cannot step outside of "whiteness" to see how racist he really is! 

    And G. Tod Sloane why is it that when a white person does not get a position or job that he or she wants, it is automatically a person of color's fault?  What about the unqualified white person who has the job because of a "white culture" networking system called the "good ol'boy" network being the problem. I can walk into any organization or institution in this country and always assume that there will be a white man employed there, if not running the place, and doing a horrible job, but he will not be released because he is a white man. Further, can you unequivocally say that you were more qualified than the Asian woman?  Spending seven years in France and earning a doctorate in French doesn't or will not make you more qualified for teaching French than someone without the French doctorate.  Could it have been that you weren't a good fit, period?  If you have been harboring the same feelings expressed in your comments, maybe they saw right through you.

  • Posted by Perry on June 17, 2009 at 2:15pm EDT
  • I agree with Shirley. It is distressing to me that people here could call for removal of someone who has treated no one in a racist manner (according to his Jewish colleague of 35 years).

    In conducting a multicultural study recently, I administered acculturation questionnaires to several ethnic groups, including a European American group. Good questionnaires exist for all of these groups except the latter. The one we ultimately used contained questions largely about attitudes toward African Americans, since apparently white identity is defined in terms of separation from blacks. As a person of Irish, English and Norwegian heritage, I find that dismaying. Members of organizations such as the Hibernian Society or the Sons of Norway (immigrant organizations) attempt to preserve positive aspects of what is undeniably a white heritage that has nothing to do with race. Everyone forms an identity and seeks to be proud of it. I believe the equation of affirmation of white identity with racism to be problematic, especially given that affirmation of every other type of identity is seen as a positive thing.

    At a recent faculty gathering, I heard a colleague attribute certain negative attitudes about immigrants to all whites. When I objected to the overgeneralization, I was told that I couldn't possibly understand anything about the matter since I was not myself an immigrant. My grandmother was as new to this country as anyone else's abuella. I suspect that unless I am willing to hear a group that I am a member of by birth maligned by others, I too will be considered a racist by colleagues. Disagreeing with any opinion on race made by minority group members is enough to get you that label. I believe that cultural tolerance needs to be extended to those of European American heritage and that a dialog on race needs to include members of all races (and yes, I know that race is a cultural construct).

    I have heard the arguments that institutional racism provides many benefits to white people of which they are oblivious. In my case being white provided childhood poverty, medical disability in childhood, parental neglect and alcoholism, being treated like trash, and early exposure to the juvenile justice system. Overcoming those "risk factors" is a personal accomplishment and I bristle whenever someone tells me, knowing nothing whatsoever about my personal history, that I have not had a struggle equivalent to that of my minority colleagues.

    I think it is time to start looking explicitly at some of the assumptions about so-called white America. This theme emerged during the last primaries, when white Clinton supporters were accused of racism for choosing the candidate who best represented their interests, while black Obama supporters, who went 95% for their candidate, where supposedly not voting their race. Our dialog on race is dysfunctional, in my opinion, because there is no voice permitted on the issue to those who are white, without being accused of hatred (as several comments above illustrate). Because this professor aids in widening our dialog on race, something Obama himself called for, I support his right to speak.

  • Posted by kgotthardt on June 17, 2009 at 2:15pm EDT
  • There is nothing wrong with being a white male and being proud to be a while male, so long as you are not denigrating others or inciting violence or hatred. And European culture should be celebrated. Why not?

    And equality should include white males.

    I think anyone who writes like Griffin, no matter what his/her ethnic background, is generally chewed out for such speech.

    Free speech? Yes.

    Freedom without responsibility?

    No.

  • Mr. Slone writes,
  • Posted by cts on June 17, 2009 at 2:15pm EDT
  • "a Mongolian with a green card was kept in a position at a public university, while I was not given a new contract. The position was in French and I was certainly more qualified than her, having spent seven years in France, as compared to her month and even had a doctorate from a French university. She did not. However, she was a much better bureaucrat than I, and I had been critical of certain things at the institution, including the religious séances held at each faculty meeting."

    Please look at your own example of 'dsicrimination': you admit the other faculty member was better at something of value to the school and that you had been 'critical' of practices there. Do you really think that the dispositive reasons for her continuation and your dismissal were racial?

    This pattern among white males seems to be increasingly evident, and it is ironic insofar as it ehoes the pattern which many white males decry in people of color and women: i.e., the pattern of seeing all one's troubles as the result of discrimination on the part of others.

    As to the other example you mention - of the restarted search - perhaps the Dean did want a more diverse pool. Or, given that this would not have required an entirely new search, perhaps the Dean told the program that its search had not worked out well in light of the quality of candidates brought to campus. Or, perhaps, the person who said this to you simply found it easier than explaining why you were not selected.

    Academe is still dominated by white men. This is a fact easily discovered through the statistics. It is at least possible that some white men have not found places in academe because no one else wanted to hire them as individuals.

  • ...Let Him Speak
  • Posted by Adjunct Professor , History at Northeast Liberal Arts on June 17, 2009 at 2:15pm EDT
  • This illustrates well the increasingly double-standard many of us have when it comes to race in this country. I would guess every college or university in this country offers a “Black Culture” course of some variety or another. However, heaven forbid that a white professor offer the same kinds of courses about “white Europeans”. When he does he’s labeled a racist and we demand that he’s fired. Should we demand Black Studies Professor Cornell West be terminated because some gang-banger publicly agreed with statements on his website?

    We can’t seem to get our heads around this fact: there are white racists and there are black racists. Neither one is okay. We can’t assume just because a person is white they are pre-disposed to racism. Additionally, the color of my skin does not automatically put me on a path to wealth and privilege anymore than the color of your skin keeps you oppressed and enslaved. This is nonsense.

    My European ancestors were oppressed, enslaved and starved to death, denied employment and caricatured. This is important history too. This opinion doesn’t qualify me to be an expert on race nor does it make me a racist. Just ask my white Gaelic speaking European ancestors who were forced to fight and die in huge numbers in a cause which among other things, opposed slavery.

  • Posted by kgotthardt on June 17, 2009 at 2:15pm EDT
  • Mr. Browning, you are much more patient than I am.

    I believe persecuting people is evil. This man endorses discrimination and persecution. His actions, to me, are evil.

    Different beliefs are fine. But people who write like Griffin tend to try to stomp out people who differ from them. They align themselves with as many people who think like them as they can, putting themselves in positions of power that they never should have.

    Griffin seems to want to defend his value system through intimidation. You can't tell me that supporting neo-Nazis or acting like one does not equal a public attempt at intimidation, consciously or not. This man is scared, and his fear has led him to places most of us would never logically go. He literally sees others as enemies to be combated.

    Sometimes, taking the "high road" means saying, "Enough is enough!"

  • So what?
  • Posted by Carlos on June 17, 2009 at 2:15pm EDT
  • So .. one right-wing "scholar" in a sea of USA-haters is singled-out. In case anyone has noticed -- the U.S. financial system just nearly collapsed, those responsible deny involvement, trillions of worthless paper money may be printed, millions have lost their jobs PERMANENTLY, and your grandchildren may spend 17 years to pay off this mess.

    Given the aforementioned -- why the heck should anyone should care about one "scholar" in the middle of nowhere? As opposed to other "scholars" of the other political vein, some of whom have been accused of heinous violent felonies against the public?

    Really. Get some sense of dimension.

  • Why white nationalism is unavoidable
  • Posted by CR on June 17, 2009 at 2:30pm EDT
  • It would be really nice if we could put an end to all the tribalism and racial double standards.

    That's not gonna happen, though. There are too many people benefiting from the race hustle for that to go away. Plus, people are naturally tribal, and there will be serious trouble with tribalism whenever different tribes live together unless the tribalism is strenuously suppressed. Like I wrote before, white tribalism is being suppressed, but other tribalisms are being promoted.

    The only question is how long it will take for the white backlash to reach a critical mass.

  • Posted by JC on June 17, 2009 at 2:30pm EDT
  • Be careful Teresa, "good fit" is how the good ol' boy network promoted itself. 

    Now, "good fit" has been replaced by forced diversity. To deny that many diversity hirings are forced is to be in denial. Having a Ph.D. from a French Univ. and spending seven years there certainly IS relevant to the job of being a French professor! Wake up, PC America! 

  • There is no such thing as equal
  • Posted by Unbelievable , Education at University on June 17, 2009 at 3:01pm EDT
  • I've been at the hiring table many times in my years in academe, and I believe that when you have five White people and one person of color making the decision (which is usually the case because of the fact that White people make up the vast majority of faculty at American colleges), the person of color will never get a fair shake without affirmative action. So, quit whining because you didn't get a job. Odds are, the people of color in the pool have been overlooked because of their race or culture many more times than you. I am having no identity crisis, but I am White.

  • The need for "White European Studies" courses
  • Posted by DrDave , Professor at UAlbany, SUNY on June 17, 2009 at 4:45pm EDT
  • The complaint that there are no courses exploring white European heritage is disingenuous. The vast majority of courses in the social sciences, arts, and humanities at almost any institution of higher education focus on the heritage of white---usually male---Europeans (and white---usually male---Americans). We have more than enough opportunity to explore our heritage at length. One of the reasons that various minority studies programs exist is because women, blacks, and other minorities do not get much exposure to their heritages in these classes. Of course, those programs are racially conscious. How can they not be when coverage of those cultural circumstances is largely absent (or evident only the coverage of one or two token representatives) from most of the courses we teach?

  • normal people
  • Posted by Bart on June 17, 2009 at 5:30pm EDT
  • One reason you have courses on "black culture" in some form or other and not on

    "White European" is that in the US race and ethnicity have been thought of as something

    someone else has. Especially, blacks. White was seen as "normal" or simply the default category whenever talking about people or Americans.

    And of course it's unlikely anybody would object if a professor offered a course on European culture or any ethnic group of European descent. Courses in Irish studies, Scandinavian, German, etc... are pretty common.

  • Posted by Perry on June 17, 2009 at 6:00pm EDT
  • Courses used to exclusively focus on white male experience in most fields, but I don't believe that is true any longer. It hasn't been true in my teaching experience over the past 15 years (at both elite private and state universities), and I believe it started changing in the 70s. I believe diversity should be integrated into all disciplines, not limited to ethnic studies courses. Many textbooks, even in areas like statistics, aim for inclusiveness.

    I strongly disagree with the statement above that if 5 white faculty members and 1 minority member are present the minority member has no chance. On the other hand, I have been snubbed myself by minority faculty members more interested in talking to each other than including me. I doubt they were aware of my feelings of exclusion. I see faculty go to great lengths to be sensitive to diversity. I also see no bottom to the sense of grievance felt by some minority faculty. I wonder whether some people would notice if the world were to suddenly become their ideal multicultural environment. When people are not rewarded for efforts to change and be inclusive, they will stop making those efforts -- that's simple S-R learning theory.

  • A few thoughts
  • Posted by HAW , Tenured Associate Professor at UVM on June 17, 2009 at 6:00pm EDT
  • Inside Higher Ed asked me to comment about my colleague, Mr. Griffin. At first I did not want to comment, but decided to eventually comment, but the story had already been published. Professor Griffin is entitled to his opinion. I also think the scholarly study of white people is significant. I am a relatively young African American professor at UVM, but regardless of racial identity I find Griffin's arguments weak. His book reviews are not even reviews, but rather pieces that advocate his own positions. The saddest part about Griffin is that he won't even admit what he is: a racist, plain and simple. The problem with Griffin is he is not a scholar, but rather an advocate for a very specific position. I don't like people like Griffin and I don't like black professors who advocate the same kind of crap from the other side.

  • Warning: The PC Mindset and Anonymity) Are Harmful to Democracy
  • Posted by G. Tod Slone on June 18, 2009 at 10:30am EDT
  • It is amazing to note that nearly all respondents to this article responded anonymously! In other words, it would be impossible for me to contact most respondents. That says so much, so much more than anonymous persons would likely permit themselves to contemplate! Fear and cowardice have overwhelmed Academe. Democracy cannot survive in America, if fear and cowardice become as dominant as they've become in Academe. In fact, neither can individual dignity.

    What are the statistics: male/female? I thought today women edged out men in academe. 51-52% females? If so, why does the anonymous ctc think men are in the large majority? My point was entirely missed by him or her. PC tends to block the thinking processes. The PC mindset simply cannot reason with clarity. If one argues against a PC point, then one is automatically labeled right wing (When logic fails, always resort to ad hominem!). Bring up Affirmative Action and the PC mindset spews the PC party line. It's all quite Stalinist. We need to debate AA, not spew the AA party line. Also, we need to compare some of the article titles cited here regarding white me with similar titles regarding black men, women, and latinos. But the PC mindset will not permit such comparison.

    America has become a business. And for that business, color and sex really don't matter. Cheap labor matters. To me, it doesn't even feel like a country. In such a business, it is normal that a Mongolian with a green card who does not give a damn about democracy's cornerstone, vigorous debate, would be given preference over an American citizen like me who speaks openly and freely, who values democracy. That is normal. What I stated was that it should not be normal for a country. But in a business it is normal. In academe, it is normal. Academe is a business. Academe scorns democracy. The lone critic at a college or university is always scorned by his or her fearful and silent colleagues. In fact, if America continues opening its doors to a huge influx of immigrants, wouldn't it be interesting to make some kind of determination as to whether or not the immigrants accepted into the country come here for democracy or rather for the God MONEY... and how might that affect democracy in America? How might that affect America, the BUSINESS? Would it add to the ranks of the anonymous? Quite likely.

    G. Tod Slone, Founding Editor

    The American Dissident: Journal of Literature, Democracy & Dissidence

    A 501 c3 Nonprofit Providing a Forum for Vigorous Debate, Cornerstone of Democracy

    www.theamericandissident.org

    1837 Main St.

    Concord, MA 01742

     

  • Homo Sapiens sapiens
  • Posted by Malvern Hill on June 18, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
  • Science has established that humananity originated in Africa. Over eons of pre-history there were mass migrations from Africa all over the world and back, environmental conditions bringing out the physiolgical phenotypes that were always in our genetic potential. We are all no more than 50th cousins of one another. The rest is political; the rest is history.

    Civilization grew up among peoples in Africa--including those of returning immigrant strains--when other strains had gotten stranded, say, in northern Europe and were living in caves. Cave dwellers are the more immediate African ancestors of the Europeans who created western civilization and its attendant empires after borrowing much knowledge from continental Africa, then forgetting (for political reasons) that it was borrowed.

    Human power systems roll like waves throughout human history. We are all capable of lording it over our cousins according to fluctuating geological and historical conditions. We are all equally intelligent, equally powerful, equally vulnerable, equally emotional, equally human in a multitude of ways. Different political situations manifest different cultural responses and survival strategies on a continnuum from "healthy" to "neurotic" to "pathological." And characterizing these responses is itself poltical such that what seems "pathological" to some may be a necessary survival strategy to others. Humans dominating over others, for example, may perceive themselves as strong and healthy when their very exercise of power is really worthy of, among other things, pity. I'm thinking of the desire for "white" supremacy. There is in reality no such thing as "race" even as we are now stuck with the term.

    The question is how do we seek peace, mutual understanding and democratic sharing of power with all the hurt lingering in our various heritages? I understand the desire of some "whites" to feel pride in their own various ethnicities. This need is itself, obviously, a historically specific one. But Griffin's approach is shortsighted. It looks at small and biased samplings of recent history, treating the present as though the resulting, distorted appearance obtains universally and eternally.

  • Posted by KB , Grad student at Midwest University on June 19, 2009 at 9:00pm EDT
  • Doctor Dave made the point which I was going to make. Courses exploring White European culture exist, but they are not labelled in that way. As a member of one of the largest English departments in the US, I can attest that we do offer a number of courses focussing largely on canonical works, and those works are generally written by white, European males. If you run through the traditional literary periods, most of them are biased towards white, male authors: Medieval, Renaissance, Romantic, Victorian, etc. etc. It is necessary to have courses by African-American, Asian or women writers as a corrective to that general tendency.

  • Don't forget
  • Posted by DFS on June 20, 2009 at 2:00pm EDT
  • That if you're not completely on board with all of the politically 'correct' drivel espoused by academia, you must by default be some kind of undercover pro-white nut.

    Such is defined any parameter to The Discussion.

    Historical facts be damned.

  • "Historical facts be damned."
  • Posted by Curro Romero on June 21, 2009 at 3:00pm EDT
  • Rather, ever more historical facts included in "The Discussion," as generalized by Malvern Hill above.

    BTW, the Left and the Right have advococates calling attention to "The Facts."

    Witness, say, Noam Chomsky and Bertrand Russel, praising The Enlightenment, reason, objectivity, "the facts," paired examples, scientific method, logical analysis.

    From these they reach conclusions about the systems of dominance set up by the very western, Enlightenment project they extol as the way to Truth about what's really going on in the 20th- and 21st-centuries. Intriguing.

    Perhaps they would call attention to historical facts conveniently screened out by DFS's ideological filter?

  • How about history be damned?
  • Posted by DFS on June 21, 2009 at 8:15pm EDT
  • You are the ideological filter, along with Malvern Hill.

    Remains were found in Africa. They have not yet been 'found' elsewhere. Ergo, those remains are the only possible remains. Got it.

    I suppose also that you two are big fans of Dr. Cress Welsing, along with her nonsense about how whites, of the deficient gene, were driven into exile to the forests and caves of Europe by their disdainful, melanin-enriched parents, finding refuge, where they stagnated in savagery, There, they interbreeded until all African origins were hidden. But, miraculously, the ancient Greeks somehow managed to rise far enough from this foul soup of an inferior gene pool to steal their civilization from black Egyptians?

    I mean, give me a break. To quote from Malvern Hill, "... we are all equally intelligent, equally powerful, equally vulnerable, equally emotional," etc., and therefore why are now unequally qualified to 'filter' anything?

    If you don't swallow the current orthodoxy, you don't count.

    Give me a break.

    Remember, we should just halt all attempts at archeology, and therefore sociology, now?

  • Wrong Story
  • Posted by Malvern Hill on June 22, 2009 at 8:30pm EDT
  • The story I give above has nothing to do with Frances Creswell. I am, above, negating white and/or black supremacy.

    I've heard her speak in person. She dismisses Marx and dialectical historicism.

    Try again.

  • Sorry, Correction
  • Posted by Malvern Hill on June 23, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • That's Frances Cress Welsing. I wrote
    "Frances Creswell" in haste.

    DFS: Your supposition is far off the mark. Whether you suscribe to a single origin, or multiple origins, we're talking 100s of millions of years and the certainty that humans have been migrating, mixing, engaging in far-flung trade and hybridizing for eons upon eons. The original Sub-Saharan Africans, for example, probably did not look like those of more recent prehistory. There is, genetically, only one race: the human race. As long as we match just 4 blood types we can all share blood with one another regardless of the phenotypes of the persons sharing.

    Human history is probably less a matter of a "stronger" sub species killing off "weaker" ones than various groups interbreeding and cooperating. Hence, survival of the fittest, that is, best adapted to the environment, that is, common sense, understanding the mutual survival value of cooperation and idea exchange, often feeling genuine attraction over fear. Hence, what the Greeks no doubt inherited from Africa and elsewhere (then, like true conquerors, and lacking the very wisdom they extolled, plagiarized). It is the worst "ideological filter" to understand "survival of the fittest" in the traditionally narrow sense of competition. (Ayn Rand couldn't get her mind around contradiction so she blithely dimissed it in favor of her limited understanding of Aristotelian binaries. A fatal flaw in her logic. Computers do binaries and, compared to humans, have the intelligence of "a retarded cockroach with a lobotomy" as I heard a computer expert--whose name I regrettably forget--say on WBAI radio.)

    For more context on my sketch above see the genotype/phenotype distinction. I first thought Welsing was parodying or satirizing white supremacy. True, light skin and blue eyes are recessive traits. (Blue eyes picked up infrared light better in long winters and long nights of northern Europe while brown eyes protected against the UV rays of direct sunlight in the tropics.) But both traits exist in our genetic potential. Different enviroments over eons, allowed adaptive traits to manifest. Welsing, a bilogical essentialist, and prejudiced in her own right, appears to attribute inferiority to blue eyes and fair skin, which is just as ridiculous as thinking the other way around.

    In "Persons of Mean and Vile Condition" Zinn describes how people are thought inferior on the basis of class. In the European-American context classism precedes racism. Plantation owners in Virginia, by the late 1600s early 1700s, invented "whiteness" and "the one-drop rule" because English and African servants were intermarrying and planning to revolt. Divide. Conquer. It is intelligence without wisdom, remember, that builds empires, systems of dominance, the ideology of scarcity.

    Not only is there genetic hybridity, there is no such thing as a pure culture. All cultures, likewise, have always been hybrid cultures. Biological and cultural hybridity is why humans survived in the first place.

    Let us surmount our belief in artificial scarcity.

  • Another Correction
  • Posted by Malvern Hill on June 23, 2009 at 10:30am EDT
  • That should read, "100s of THOUSANDS of years."

  • Malvern,
  • Posted by DFS on June 23, 2009 at 3:45pm EDT
  • You points are well taken. I am the one who injected 'Dr.' Hill into this otherwise worthwhile discussion.

    Thanks for your knowledge. I can read from your printed lines here that you're not some kind of nut.

    Nor am I. I just wonder at the achievements of archaeology, but at the same time I wonder why archaeology blindly runs to only one conclusion.

    100's of even Millions of years should account for some kind of acknowleged possibility of error in assertions, should it not?

    Even though my gut feelings lean toward an African origin of the most powerful race/form of life on this planet, I still have to slap myself in the face until I see some actual 'proof' of these origins. I am knee-jerk in response to any correctly unchallenged politically correct conclusions.