Print
While this year has become best known as the fortieth anniversary of Woodstock, it was also forty years ago that the first African-American Studies department was established, at San Francisco State University.
Forty-one fall semesters later, there are hundreds of such departments. Has what they teach evolved with the march of time?
I explore that question here at the Minding the Campus site sponsored by my think tank. My point is that the typical African-American Studies department holds front and center a particular lesson: that racism is more influential in American life at present than one might initially think, and always has been.
Urban history? Blacks were penned into segregated districts and then factory jobs available to modestly educated men were moved to China. Politics? Radicalism has been most interesting, whether or not it was the source of most black success. Performance? Most resonant in how it Spoke Truth to Power.
Is that all we are? Is that all we have been? Is it irrelevant to cover how black people have triumphed against the obstacles? Especially since so many have trumphed that today there are more middle class black people than poor ones? Is the main relevance of the fact that we have a black President--ahem!!!!--that his election didn’t mean, as if anyone thought it did, that there did not remain some racist idiots here and there?
It’s time that African-American Studies departments let go of the sixties imperative to defend blacks as eternal victims of racism. Black people can do their best even under imperfect conditions--and if that reality is irrelevant to an African-American Studies curriculum, then we must question the value of said curricula to those whom they purport to speak up for: real people in this real world. This real world which will never be perfect--even for descendants of African slaves.
In 2009, the study of blackness must be the study of a race most of whose members are now victors, not victims. Certainly the victims must be studied--but only within a genuine commitment to saving them, not chronicling them as helpless until America turns upside down in a fashion no one could seriously imagine will ever happen.
Two things are crucial in my piece at Minding the Campus.
First, I do not argue that African-American Studies departments should not exist. Any claims that this piece is “against Black Studies” will be, as Obama said in his speech on health care not long ago, lies.
Second, I do not assail teachers within them as charlatans or anarchists. At all. I know they are all working at the top of their abilities. I just question what the guiding imperatives of their departments are, and ask them to address a wider range of arguments.
This piece is simply a call for a true African-American Studies paradigm: a study of black people entire, with ample room for views from all sides. Black conservatives should be read alongside Du Bois and Baldwin, with no clucking and hedging. Any hovering consensus that leftist positions are “truth” should be a mark of failure.
Here is what I would hope to see in the wake of what I write.
Since I started writing and speaking on race in 2000, it has been typical that when I am invited to speak at a university by an African-American Studies department, often I am expected to yield some time to someone assigned to give a riposte--i.e. speak up for the usual leftist line. That is, the inviters pride themselves on being open-minded enough to hear me out, but consider it the duty of good-thinking folk to provide, shall we say, “balance.”
But then, when “proper”-thinking black writers are invited to speak, there is no sense that their talk is incomplete without a “conservative” person spending fifteen minutes having their say.
African-American Studies departments typically see themselves as doing their jobs in harboring a “controversial” speaker, partly out of a wan gesture towards true intellectual engagement, but equally as much because they know that person will, because of shock value, fill seats.
However, they are not engaged in true exploration, in the intellectual sense, until they can process the “controversial” speaker as simply, and only, a speaker, with one view among many. And, if articulate enough to merit invitation, worthy of engagement without some “right-minded” black faculty member dragged in as a “corrective.”
In an African-American Studies department of the kind I suggest, speakers and teachers of all walks would be permitted--note: not just conservative ones--and students would be able to come to their own conclusions. That is, be educated in the true sense. Do African-American Studies departments want to deny their majors an education in the true sense? Read on, again here.
COMMENTS (14)
Here's a consummation devoutly to be wished for: your post (and your essay) and this essay by Stanley Fish: http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/26074024.html.
Put that all together and I wager you'll have a happening Afro-American Studies Department.
Here's a consummation devoutly to be wished for: your post (and your essay) and this essay by Stanley Fish: http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/26074024.html.
Put that all together and I wager you'll have a happening Afro-American Studies Department.
Here's something I've noticed. Almost all the editors at TNR seem to be white. And the subject of race does not pop up all that frequently here. But when it does, it's almost always from McWhorter.
Draw your own conclusions, of course, but really: Obama notwithstanding, how much progress on race have we really made in America...even in the punditocracy...when this sort of thing still persists?
And you would think that with each passing year [over the past 40] the success of the African-American Studies programs would make it less and less likely they would still be around to remind us of why it is still crucial that they are.
I've been rereading Nixonland [and I lived through it in any number ... view full comment
Here's something I've noticed. Almost all the editors at TNR seem to be white. And the subject of race does not pop up all that frequently here. But when it does, it's almost always from McWhorter.
Draw your own conclusions, of course, but really: Obama notwithstanding, how much progress on race have we really made in America...even in the punditocracy...when this sort of thing still persists?
And you would think that with each passing year [over the past 40] the success of the African-American Studies programs would make it less and less likely they would still be around to remind us of why it is still crucial that they are.
I've been rereading Nixonland [and I lived through it in any number of radical political organizations] so I know how dramatic things have changed over the past 40 years. But I also know how dramatically they have not. The "race problem". Try to imagine W.E.B. Dubois around today commenting on it. What would he be saying?
To Barack Obama for example.
george
If it is in fact true that African American Studies programs are universally focused only on racism and not the positive aspects of black history and culture, then McWhorter is right to complain about it. But I am highly skeptical that what he says is true. I supsect that he simply dislikes that fact that his speeches at such programs are subject to critique, as if the "leftists" are advocates and he is merely a fact-teller.
I have to agree with George here. It is indeed curious that McWhorter appears to be TNR's token black man to deal with issues of race. And on top of that, his gimmick is that he almost universally advocates positions about race that are advocated by the right (hence h ... view full comment
If it is in fact true that African American Studies programs are universally focused only on racism and not the positive aspects of black history and culture, then McWhorter is right to complain about it. But I am highly skeptical that what he says is true. I supsect that he simply dislikes that fact that his speeches at such programs are subject to critique, as if the "leftists" are advocates and he is merely a fact-teller.
I have to agree with George here. It is indeed curious that McWhorter appears to be TNR's token black man to deal with issues of race. And on top of that, his gimmick is that he almost universally advocates positions about race that are advocated by the right (hence his complaint elsewhere that he is widely regarded as a political conservative). An exception was his reaction to the Gates/Crowley matter, with regard to which he could not hide his sense that law enforcement agencies remain prejudiced against black men. McWhorter is smart and is a good writer. I particularly enjoy his writings about language and literature. And he is of course free to adopt contrarian views about race -- it probably stimulates more thought and discussion than if he did not. But does he not see the irony of it?
Dhurtado:
A post below your usually higher standards:
1. If you want to make a case for McWhorter’s mischaracterization of what goes in these departments then by all means do so, but don’t rest content with your skepticism and then attempt to psychologize his mischaracterization by what you suspect about his aversion to criticism, another case you have not made. It’s rank intellectual hearsay. Worse: it’s like double or triple intellectual hearsay: suppositions piled on top of each other leading to other suppositions all shakily leading to fake conclusions.
2. I can’t comment on what you agree with George because I ever read what he says and am indifferent to him;
3. But in what you sa ... view full comment
Dhurtado:
A post below your usually higher standards:
1. If you want to make a case for McWhorter’s mischaracterization of what goes in these departments then by all means do so, but don’t rest content with your skepticism and then attempt to psychologize his mischaracterization by what you suspect about his aversion to criticism, another case you have not made. It’s rank intellectual hearsay. Worse: it’s like double or triple intellectual hearsay: suppositions piled on top of each other leading to other suppositions all shakily leading to fake conclusions.
2. I can’t comment on what you agree with George because I ever read what he says and am indifferent to him;
3. But in what you say you are agreeing with, you continue your slide into irrelevancies that amount to ad hominem attack. By you, McWhorter is a “token black man”, which is a terrible thing to say about him and a terrible thing to say about TNR, a really liberal journal of politics and culture, which embraces a range--not the widest, but a range nonetheless--of views. You are saying, let's be clear, that TNR wants a “token black man”, which is a racist smear—you are saying it wants to be white but give the impression by tokens, signs meant to falsely convey a depth or amplitude that does not really exist, that that is not so.
4. And what McWhorter writes is a gimmick? Why is it a gimmick? Only because—let’s stipulate—I have never done a content analysis—he thinks in line with some other conservatives; he is a political conservative. Which is to say, his conservatism, if such it be, cannot be sincerely thought and felt--it is rather a gimmick, a shtick--because it does not align with your orthodoxy. What he thinks is not politically correct, which correctness, you alone have purchase on. What a cheap and undeserved dismissal of McWhorter!
5. He is what he is in his thinking. I say deal with that on the merits and later for all the speculative irrelevancy.
Basman,
McWhorter makes the claim that African American Studies programs across the country focus only on racism and victimology and not on positive aspects of black history and culture. He does not support that assertion with any evidence. The burden of proof is on him, not me. He further observes that whenever he is invited to speak to students in an African American Studies program, there are other speakers with different viewpoints. He contends, without any proof, that the hosts of the speaking engagements are motivated to invite other speakers because they disapprove of his (McWhorter's) views. Perhaps is it unfair of me to ascribe to McWhorter an aversion to criticism, but I think ... view full comment
Basman,
McWhorter makes the claim that African American Studies programs across the country focus only on racism and victimology and not on positive aspects of black history and culture. He does not support that assertion with any evidence. The burden of proof is on him, not me. He further observes that whenever he is invited to speak to students in an African American Studies program, there are other speakers with different viewpoints. He contends, without any proof, that the hosts of the speaking engagements are motivated to invite other speakers because they disapprove of his (McWhorter's) views. Perhaps is it unfair of me to ascribe to McWhorter an aversion to criticism, but I think I am simply playing by his rules. Moreover, my comment did not make any assertions about McWhorter's motivations, but only raised suspicions on my part, based on the paucity of evidence in McWhorter's post.
McWhorter has denied being a political conservative. He has complained that many people believe he is a political conservative because his expressed views about racial issues are generally aligned with the views of political conservatives. That is not in and of itself a gimmick. He is perfectly entitled to have those views. But his gimmick as a comumnist, his "hook," in my view, is that he is a black man who consistently takes a contrarian view about the continuing need to address racism in American society. Let's face it, for good or ill, it is a novelty for a black journalist to consistently tack to the view that racism is no longer a significant problem in our society.
However, as I said in my initial post, it is completely OK for him to have that viewpoint. But I find it ironic that he expresses that viewpoint from a platform in which he is the only black columnist, and in which is assignment is to address issues of race. According to his own lights, why should his race have anything to do with what he writes about? That's what I mean by "token black" -- the lone black writer to write about race. I would think that McWhorter would not like being in that position.
dhurtado, what McWhorter said was as follows:
Since I started writing and speaking on race in 2000, it has been typical that when I am invited to speak at a university by an African-American Studies department, often I am expected to yield some time to someone assigned to give a riposte--i.e. speak up for the usual leftist line. That is, the inviters pride themselves on being open-minded enough to hear me out, but consider it the duty of good-thinking folk to provide, shall we say, “balance.”
But then, when “proper”-thinking black writers are invited to speak, there is no sense that their talk is incomplete without a “conservative” person spending fifteen minutes havin ... view full comment
dhurtado, what McWhorter said was as follows:
Since I started writing and speaking on race in 2000, it has been typical that when I am invited to speak at a university by an African-American Studies department, often I am expected to yield some time to someone assigned to give a riposte--i.e. speak up for the usual leftist line. That is, the inviters pride themselves on being open-minded enough to hear me out, but consider it the duty of good-thinking folk to provide, shall we say, “balance.”
But then, when “proper”-thinking black writers are invited to speak, there is no sense that their talk is incomplete without a “conservative” person spending fifteen minutes having their say.
Which you then paraphrased as:
He further observes that whenever he is invited to speak to students in an African American Studies program, there are other speakers with different viewpoints. He contends, without any proof, that the hosts of the speaking engagements are motivated to invite other speakers because they disapprove of his (McWhorter's) views.
This is either consciously or unintentionally misleading. He didn't complain that there were in general other speakers -- as on a panel discussion -- with different viewpoints, and that he objected to this (which would be kind of strange). As I read him, he said that when he is invited as an individual speaker, he is expected to give up time to a commentator who provides "balance" (his quotes), whereas a speaker with the consensual left/activist perspective is not so treated.
I agree that he didn't give chapter and verse, but when someone speaks to personal experience, they usually have a certain credibility until such time as they are revealed to be lying or obfuscating. Personal experience is not quite the same as opinion.
Your approach on this issue is tantamout to nitpicking in order to avoid the crucial question that McWhorter raises: whether African-American Studies programs engage in one-sided advocacy that damages their standing as regards teaching and scholarship.
Irony,
I have looked at it again, and I honestly don't think my paraphrase is misleading at all. It is more concise, but it pretty much says exactly what McWhorter says. Where there is more than one speaker, it goes without saying that they must yield time to one another. But why is it unfair to provide balance? And what basis does McWhorter have for contending that the inviters are motivated not just to provide balance, but to advocate the "leftist line." And what basis does he have for the claim that "when 'proper'-thinking black writers are invited to speak, there is no sense that their talk is incomplete without a "conservative' person spending fifteen minutes having their say." Ho ... view full comment
Irony,
I have looked at it again, and I honestly don't think my paraphrase is misleading at all. It is more concise, but it pretty much says exactly what McWhorter says. Where there is more than one speaker, it goes without saying that they must yield time to one another. But why is it unfair to provide balance? And what basis does McWhorter have for contending that the inviters are motivated not just to provide balance, but to advocate the "leftist line." And what basis does he have for the claim that "when 'proper'-thinking black writers are invited to speak, there is no sense that their talk is incomplete without a "conservative' person spending fifteen minutes having their say." How does McWhorter know that? By definition, he, as a "conservative," speaks at all the panels at which he is present.
Nor do I avoid what I agree is the more important question of "whether African-American Studies programs engage in one-sided advocacy that damages their standing as regards teaching and scholarship." Indeed, I ask for evidence of McWhorter's assertion not only that the programs engage in one-sided advocacy (which I don't necessarily find implausible), but also that the programs focus on racism and victimhood to the exclusion of the positive aspects of black culture (which I find implausible). Is it enough that McWhorter bases his claim on his personal experience? Why? Has he ever taken an African American studies class or curriculum? If so, when? Has he done some kind of survey of the myriad African American Studies programs around the country, examining their curricula or syllabi, perhaps even talking to teachers and students? If so, he does not say so. How can we evaluate McWhorter's thesis when it is based on merely conclusory statements?
I find your comment above a bit strange, jhild. Firstly you reject my accusation of misleading paraphrase. OK, people can disagree about that. Then, however, you accuse McWhorter of somehow inventing all of this. There's something weird going on here. You want to both paraphrase the account in a way that suggests that McWhorter doesn't like dealing with opposing viewpoints (a nonsensical thing to say imo) and you want to dispute the validity of his entire account. It's not quite contradictory, but it comes close to a kid saying "I never went near the window, and anyway it wasn't my fault that the ball hit it!"
It's not difficult, and I find it odd how you are trying to evade it. He's m ... view full comment
I find your comment above a bit strange, jhild. Firstly you reject my accusation of misleading paraphrase. OK, people can disagree about that. Then, however, you accuse McWhorter of somehow inventing all of this. There's something weird going on here. You want to both paraphrase the account in a way that suggests that McWhorter doesn't like dealing with opposing viewpoints (a nonsensical thing to say imo) and you want to dispute the validity of his entire account. It's not quite contradictory, but it comes close to a kid saying "I never went near the window, and anyway it wasn't my fault that the ball hit it!"
It's not difficult, and I find it odd how you are trying to evade it. He's merely saying that in his personal experience, when he is the invited speaker, someone else is put up after him to to fix a kind of ideological crime-scene tape around what he has said, but if someone from the left/activist consensus is the invited speaker, no such "balance" seems to be needed. Of course it's not wrong to provide balance. McWhorter's point is that balance is only provided in the one instance, when non-consensus speakers are at the podium.
And does he have experience of African American studies programs around the country? I don't know that for a fact. But I don't really know a whole lot of stuff for a fact -- I have to take it on faith in a rational universe. McWhorter is an African American writer and commentator, and independently a scholar of language, so I assume he has had a few invitations to speak here and there at academic institutions. It doesn't seem unlikely that he's also been in the audience when others have been invited to speak.
Again, we do in fact give some credence to personal experience if that experience sounds plausible in the light of what the speaker does as a line of work. So if he's talking about speaking at a college or university, yes he gets some attention, if he's talking about being an airline pilot, no. I could tell you quite a few things about academic meetings and events in the area of literary scholarship, the role of the humanities, and so on. I would draw on personal experience, but I wouldn't necessarily be able to describe every single incident that went to form my impression. That doesn't make my impression inaccurate, however.
My personal experience is that I've seen McWhorter speaking a couple of times on c-span. He seems to be an intelligent guy who is well able to deal with critical comments and questions, and very unlike anyone who seeks to impose his own views. Does that count?
Irony,
First, Jhildner is another poster on TNR who is a lot smarter than I am. Second, I fully agree that McWhorter is a smart guy and a good writer, and I expect one could have a reasonable, open minded discussion with him. But I do find it curious that he has established a niche for himself in going after black institutions such as the NAACP and African American Studies programs. And he does so through the lens of a denial that discrimination or racism continues to exist in our society to any substantial degree. He is entitled to that belief, but since he is evaluating institutions through that lens, I think he needs to tell us whether he is basing his conclusions on his pre-concepti ... view full comment
Irony,
First, Jhildner is another poster on TNR who is a lot smarter than I am. Second, I fully agree that McWhorter is a smart guy and a good writer, and I expect one could have a reasonable, open minded discussion with him. But I do find it curious that he has established a niche for himself in going after black institutions such as the NAACP and African American Studies programs. And he does so through the lens of a denial that discrimination or racism continues to exist in our society to any substantial degree. He is entitled to that belief, but since he is evaluating institutions through that lens, I think he needs to tell us whether he is basing his conclusions on his pre-conceptions or on empirical observation.
I have already acknowledged that I was probably unfair in attributing to McWhorter an aversion to criticism. By the same token, however, I think it is unfair of McWhorter to attribute to his inviters the motive of wanting to "fix" an "ideological crime scene" rather than simply to provide a diversity of viewpoints. That is my only point with regard to what he said about speaking engagements.
With regard to African American Studies programs, the thesis of McWhorter's post is "that the typical African-American Studies department holds front and center a particular lesson: that racism is more influential in American life at present than one might initially think, and always has been." But McWhorter then says nothing to support his thesis. He merely asserts it, and concludes that it is a bad thing and that African American Studies programs should change their content.
To be fair, if one links to the longer paper that McWhorter wrote elsewhere, he references materials from two African American Studies programs, one at the University Pennsylvania and one at the University of Massachusetts. But he acknowledges in that paper that he does not know whether the programs of those two programs are typical of African American Studies programs elsewhere. Yet in his TNR post he states that "the typical African-American Studies holds front and center . . . ." I would like to see a bit more intellectual rigor than that, especially by someone who is clearly capable of it.
Sorry dhurt, that was an odd slip of mine. I didn't have any wish to deprive you of your identity. And jhildner is indeed a smart poster.
Much of what you say above makes sense. But I still find it peculiar that you keep claiming that "it is unfair of McWhorter to attribute to his inviters the motive of wanting to 'fix' an 'ideological crime scene' rather than simply to provide a diversity of viewpoints" when what he in fact said was that that such diversity appeared to be beneficial only when he or someone like him was an invited speaker, and not for other speakers on other occasions who shared more of the purported Afro-Am Studies perspective.
That is, he is claiming that the "di ... view full comment
Sorry dhurt, that was an odd slip of mine. I didn't have any wish to deprive you of your identity. And jhildner is indeed a smart poster.
Much of what you say above makes sense. But I still find it peculiar that you keep claiming that "it is unfair of McWhorter to attribute to his inviters the motive of wanting to 'fix' an 'ideological crime scene' rather than simply to provide a diversity of viewpoints" when what he in fact said was that that such diversity appeared to be beneficial only when he or someone like him was an invited speaker, and not for other speakers on other occasions who shared more of the purported Afro-Am Studies perspective.
That is, he is claiming that the "diversity" is selective.
I mean, obviously you can disagree with his assertion and also question the basis for it, but I don't understand why you continually keep misreading him.
Irony, the "fix an ideological crime scene" characterization is yours, so I don't understand why you say I am misreading McWhorter. I know I am getting into beat-a-dead-horse territory, but let me try again using McWhorter's exact words:
"[I]t has been typical that when I am invited to speak at a university by an African-American Studies department, often I am expected to yield some time to someone assigned to give a riposte--i.e. speak up for the usual leftist line. That is, the inviters pride themselves on being open-minded enough to hear me out, but consider it the duty of good-thinking folk to provide, shall we say, 'balance.'
"But then, when “proper”-thinking black writers are invit ... view full comment
Irony, the "fix an ideological crime scene" characterization is yours, so I don't understand why you say I am misreading McWhorter. I know I am getting into beat-a-dead-horse territory, but let me try again using McWhorter's exact words:
"[I]t has been typical that when I am invited to speak at a university by an African-American Studies department, often I am expected to yield some time to someone assigned to give a riposte--i.e. speak up for the usual leftist line. That is, the inviters pride themselves on being open-minded enough to hear me out, but consider it the duty of good-thinking folk to provide, shall we say, 'balance.'
"But then, when “proper”-thinking black writers are invited to speak, there is no sense that their talk is incomplete without a “conservative” person spending fifteen minutes having their say."
How does McWhorter know what the inviters are thinking? I.e., how does he know that they consider it their duty to counter-balance what he says? How does he know that when liberal writers are invited to speak, the inviters have no sense that the speakers' talk is incomplete without a conservative person having their say? Well, he apparently infers it from: (1) the fact that whenever he is invited to speak, there is always a liberal speaker as well; and (2) his perception that the inviters often invite liberal speakers without also inviting a conservative speaker. Clearly, McWhorter is in a position to assert the first premise, but what about the second? Has he attended talks at those same institutions where only liberal African American speakers were presented? And even if he has, what basis does he have for concluding that the absence of conservative speakers is based on ideological bias, rather than, say, availability? Clearly, there is a relative paucity of black conservative writers/speakers.
This whole discussion may seem petty -- and perhaps it is. But McWhorter is accusing these programs of academic bias, and I think that is a serious charge that should not be made casually.
I'm aware that the characterization is mine, dhurt, and that's why I left the quotes in when I quoted the larger segment of text, which was yours. But this seems somewhat of a red herring.
So, now we are getting to it. You ask how does McWhorter know "what the inviters are thinking." I don't believe he says he knows in the sense of seeing into their minds. He merely says that when he is invited, another speaker is hung on at the end to provide "balance" but when a speaker is more in tune with what McW sees as a kind of Afro-Am Studies consensus, that doesn't happen. He draws conclusions from that.
[I don't think "conservative" and "liberal" are useful terms here, as he doesn't see himself ... view full comment
I'm aware that the characterization is mine, dhurt, and that's why I left the quotes in when I quoted the larger segment of text, which was yours. But this seems somewhat of a red herring.
So, now we are getting to it. You ask how does McWhorter know "what the inviters are thinking." I don't believe he says he knows in the sense of seeing into their minds. He merely says that when he is invited, another speaker is hung on at the end to provide "balance" but when a speaker is more in tune with what McW sees as a kind of Afro-Am Studies consensus, that doesn't happen. He draws conclusions from that.
[I don't think "conservative" and "liberal" are useful terms here, as he doesn't see himself as the former, and the latter is too broad for what he's describing]
But he speculates about how invitations are managed, I agree. And in answer to your questions as to what he grounds such inferences or speculation upon, I think I'd call on my own experience and say that I often have grounded assertions upon knowledge gained by way of some or all of the following:
1. Being aware of current attitudes in a certain milieu
2. Being present at events at which one is not an invited speaker, but there in another capacity (e.g. interested audience member)
3. Informal conversations in and around a particular event
4. Reports of an event from various parties in various media
5. Comparisons between similar events
6. One's own or others' experience of dissimilar but structurally cognate events where ideological disagreements surfaced
7. Plausibility/implausibility of interpretation.
Of course I think one can and should ask for evidence and challenge assumptions. But what I find odd is that you keep asking for a scientific basis for what we all do all the time in many many contexts: judge from a mixture of experience, acquired information, and educated -- not wild -- speculation.
I appreciate your thoughts Irony. I agree that "conservative" and "liberal" are not particularly useful terms. I was using them as shorthand that I thought would be understood in this context -- and McWhorter himself does use the word "conservative." In any event, perhaps I am being unreasonable, but I would like a journalist who is making a public accusation to have a stronger basis for it than I might have in a casual debate with my friends. I am not asking for scientific evidence, but I would like the author to provide me with evidence from which I can infer the truth of his claim, or, in the alternative, be up front that the inference is merely his sense or speculation, so that I can ... view full comment
I appreciate your thoughts Irony. I agree that "conservative" and "liberal" are not particularly useful terms. I was using them as shorthand that I thought would be understood in this context -- and McWhorter himself does use the word "conservative." In any event, perhaps I am being unreasonable, but I would like a journalist who is making a public accusation to have a stronger basis for it than I might have in a casual debate with my friends. I am not asking for scientific evidence, but I would like the author to provide me with evidence from which I can infer the truth of his claim, or, in the alternative, be up front that the inference is merely his sense or speculation, so that I can take it for what it is worth.
"a journalist who is making a public accusation"
I wouldn't say an accusation. More like a bemused observation based on cumulative experience. Perhaps someone could make this a thesis of his or her MA and check it out in a more "academic" way.
"a journalist who is making a public accusation"
I wouldn't say an accusation. More like a bemused observation based on cumulative experience. Perhaps someone could make this a thesis of his or her MA and check it out in a more "academic" way.