Subscribe via RSS Feed

Buh-Bye

[ 88 ] May 7, 2012 |

Looks like Naomi Schaefer Riley will have more time to spend on the wingnut welfare circuit, martyr division.

…Shorter Rod Dreher:  “how could Riley have been fired for her attack on Black Studies when she had examples?  Granted, she hadn’t actually even read the “abstracts” any of the “examples” in question, but…they’re still examples, and the fact that they were in Black Studies means that they must be ‘pseudoscholarship.’  This is not at all racist.”

Share with Sociable

Comments (88)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Good.

    Although I find the line “We now agree that Ms. Riley’s blog posting did not meet The Chronicle’s basic editorial standards for reporting and fairness in opinion articles” undeservedly passive-aggressive.

    Why not just say what they said later: we didn’t bother to read her piece and then tried to defend it because it got us lots of pageviews?

    BTW – what was the Twitter response?

  2. Aaron Baker says:

    Which of course is the downside of canning her. We’ll never hear the end of it now. Still, that posting was a disgrace, and CHE was right to show her the door.

    I asked this question before on another site: if CHE is looking for a smart conservative commenter, I’m sure such people exist–and could probably use the work; why in blazes did they pick Riley Schafer? It just doesn’t make much sense.

    • GeoX says:

      if CHE is looking for a smart conservative commenter, I’m sure such people exist

      [citation needed]

    • Bruce Baugh says:

      I hav to agree with GeoX on this one, Aaron. The ideology of the conservative movement isn’t compatible with integrity or scholarship, and the movement wouldn’t settle for any conservative thoroughly detached from itself, if such a person even cares to identify as conservative anymore.

      I’d like to be wrong about this, but I genuinely can’t think of any conservative commentator in America who maintains what I’d think of as basic honesty, let alone scholarly values, over time.

    • Dana says:

      Why bother with research and learning when you can cherry-pick some universal “truths” like “lazy tenured professors,” and ride them onto the talking heads circuit?

      I remember reading her WaPo op-ed about her stupid book, “The Faculty Lounges,” and all I could think was “how many departments actually have a faculty lounge?” None at the three unis I’m most familiar with, unless you count the occasional shared room with a microwave and mini fridge.

  3. Aaron Baker says:

    And what was the great line about Dr. Laura: “she’s leaving to spend more time with the N-word.”

  4. Fraud Guy says:

    It would be nice if they took her down from their contributors list, too.

  5. M. Bouffant says:

    Here is a lovely ode to a martyr:

    Anyway, news comes tonight that Riley has been sacrificed on the altar of political correctness for her crime of pointing out how ridiculous a few black studies dissertations were. An editor announces they’ve fired her for her blog post.

    We can all sleep safely now. Or as a friend wrote, “The liberal mob has spoken. The expiation has occurred. The new gods of diversity are satisfied. The sun will rise tomorrow.”

    This does confirm for me that academia is far and away the least tolerant, least diverse, least interesting and most petty environment in which to work.

    And apparently it’s also not very good at preparing students and professors for even the slightest of criticisms. But those folks on Twitter that I mentioned up top? Well, they’re celebrating tonight.

  6. Joey Maloney says:

    Since Brainstorm was created five years ago, we have sought out bloggers representing a range of intellectual and political views, and we have allowed them broad freedom in topics and approach. As part of that freedom, Brainstorm writers were able to post independently; Ms. Riley’s post was not reviewed until after it was posted.

    I realize we have made mistakes. We will thoroughly review our editorial practices on Brainstorm and other blogs and strengthen our guidelines for bloggers.

    This is why you can’t have nice things.

  7. Gwen Dallas says:

    Is the CHE’s “mistakes were made” excuse really that encouraging?

    • Joey Maloney says:

      I realize we have made mistakes.

      It’s the editorial “we” but it’s not passive-voice-depersonalized.

    • JohnR says:

      I particularly like the fact that it was the lapse from a “civil tone” and “fairness” that caused so much “distress” to the readers, which concerns Ms. McMillen. There was some throwaway reference to “journalistic standards”, but as this is standard mush-mouthed gobbledy-gook any more, I think we can safely assume that it was the failure to be “even-handed” and “civil” that is the take-away message for the Editor here. Next time they publish somethng like this, great pains will be taken to add a phrase to indicate that both sides do it. Also, any future note in this fine publication will have to meet basic standards of “civility”. You know, same as Krauthammer, Will, Brooks etc.,etc.

  8. c u n d gulag says:

    Good.

    I hope they fire the editor who made the decision to let this racist nitwit write whatever the f*ckall she wanted to write about, unedited.

    As an Editor, if you care about the reputation of your publication, you need to make sure that reputable people are making reputable arguments.

    You may want to edit for a variety of reasons – brevity being one of them. Insight, another. New ideas! (And racism ain’t new).
    And you should also want to edit all work submitted, to make sure they meet the standards of consistency and excellence that are the hallmarks of your publication – otherwise, you have NO standard of consistency and excellence at your publication.

    Leave “page-hits” to the bloggers.

    Fire the Editor, too.

  9. rea says:

    What did you expect from a journal that names itself after Che Guevara?

  10. Malaclypse says:

    This guy still has a job there.

    The most significant element in the controversy surrounding Naomi Riley’s blog posting is the disproportionate nature of the responses.

    Um, no. The most significant element was the sneering at black students, and black studies.

  11. Anderson says:

    Right move. Considering how many published idiots haven’t been fired, I won’t rag the Chronicle here. No need to demand abject surrender.

  12. Arthur says:

    Great!

    We’ve silenced an opposition voice that was, according to the editor, and independent voice.

    We can’t have independent thoughts being published willy-nilly. They’ve got to be taken down. Must conform at all costs.

    Good job!

  13. Dave says:

    I don’t know what everyone’s problem is. Sure, she was just race-baiting, but everyone here can agree that there should be fewer phd students.

  14. actor212 says:

    I think McMillen was a little pissed about the whole incident.

  15. Aaron Baker says:

    Brian Leiter today on Schaefer Riley: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2012/05/naomi-schaefer-riley.htm. Characteristically harsh, but probably not unfair.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.