When Faculty Attack!

A conservative sent me a passive-aggressive email concerning University of Iowa professor Ellen Lewin’s intemperate response to a passive-aggressive email the College Republicans sent about “Conservative Coming Out Week.”  Instead of completing the Circle of Irony by responding to that conservative in an equally intemperate fashion, I would like to spend a moment pointing out the obvious:

The professor’s response (“FUCK YOU, REPUBLICANS”) is clearly inappropriate, but in her defense, the College Republicans were just as clearly trying to be “provocative” by appropriating the language of the causes they oppose.  They claim, for example, that they can host something called “Conservative Coming Out Week” without ever stopping to think about who exactly kept homosexuals afraid to exit the closet.  Thin as liberal support for gay and lesbian causes frequently is, it is safe to say that the people who currently wish “those people” were back in the closet weren’t the most ardent supporters of them exiting it.

Similarly, I’m sure the College Republicans chuckled to themselves when they first saw the phrase “Animal Rights BBQ” because they’ll be asserting their rights to barbeque animal … while simultaneously demonstrating their commitment to punning ungrammatically.  I should add: that latter commitment extends to all matters ungrammatical, as evidenced by their decision to host the discussion “Whose Conservative Anyway?  Guess which athletes, movie stars, and performing artists are Republican.”  This is not to say that Dr. Lewin’s response was appropriate, even if

In 2010, Lewin’s salary from the University of Iowa was $94,800.00 plus benefits.  In her spare time, [she] was written books entitled, Inventing Lesbian Cultures in America, and Gay Fatherhood: Narratives of Family and Citizenship in America.

My annoyance at the grammar of these proponents of English as an official language aside, the strange juxtaposition of Dr. Lewin’s salary and what she does “[i]n her spare” times speaks to the fundamental misunderstanding about what academics do and what their responsibilities are that snakes through the article and the comments below it.  Professors don’t write books in their “spare time” because they have no spare time.  Academics devote what these conservatives are calling “spare time” to professional duties these same conservatives would call “was written books.”  Obviously, the implicit claim is that this professor on the public dole has enough “spare time” to “was written books” about gays and lesbians instead of how awesome George Washington was, because as Dr. Lewin herself pointedly noted, this is all about conservatives’ tactically “delicate sensibilities.”

Were the College Republicans actually offended that a professor responded to their offensive provocation in a manner that demonstrated she was provoked by their offense?  Absolutely not.  As their faculty advisor (and fellow devotee to writing English good) wrote:

It’s not my place at this point to debate the merits of whether the CR message was offense, but let me remind you that they have First Amendment rights as much as you do[.]

The point can’t be the merit of a conservative student organization openly mocking homosexuals and animal rights activists, because so long as they do so without explicitly saying “FUCK YOU, HOMOSEXUALS” and “FUCK YOU, ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS,” they’re merely exercising their right to implicitly say “FUCK YOU, HOMOSEXUALS” and “FUCK YOU, ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS.”  In short, the point can’t be about the merit of the College Republicans’ argument because it has no merit: it’s all about the tactical employment of rhetorical legerdemain in the service of a hateful ideology.

Comments

[John Protevi]

Excellent. Thanks, Scott.

[Rich Puchalsky]

I thihk that all of the bits about grammar are a distraction, really. So they don't write grammatically: so what?

Here's what seems more important to me:
"Natalie Ginty, a University of Iowa Student and Chairwoman of the Iowa Federation of College Republicans, demanded an apology from Lewin’s supervisors. “We understand that as a faculty member she has the right to express her political opinion, but by leaving her credentials at the bottom of the email she was representing the University of Iowa, not herself alone,” Ginty wrote to James Enloe, the head of the Department of Anthropology."

What? That's nonsensical and would seem to require more pushback than pointing out that they wrote "Whose Conservative". Academics routinely cite their credentials, and by doing so they don't make any claim that they are representing the university as a whole. Admittedly, this claim is coming from people who are too stupid to know that academics don't write books "in their spare time" either. But it's rather more important to correct, given that the end purpose of this kind of thing is to make professors think twice before they say anything in public.

There are a number of other, picky things that I noticed. I don't think that there's anything wrong with the academic writing back "F You", but complaining afterwards that they called her Ellen, not Professor Lewin, is risible. You don't get to simultaneously swear at people and hold yourself up as a deserving some kind of outdated code of academic address... the faculty advisor's mention of First Amendment rights also seemed a bit iffy, unless the university is considered to be a public school and part of government. First Amendment rights are usually what people go on about when they don't know or want to know anything about academic freedom.

Lastly, the comments on the linked article are plenty of proof that homophobia is alive and well on the right. The top few are all about how the professor must be transgendered, a crazy lesbian, etc.

[todd.]

I'd thihk grammar was unimportant, too. If I was in the habit of thihking.

(I kid, I kid.)

[SEK]

I think that all of the bits about grammar are a distraction, really. So they don't write grammatically: so what?

Mockery's never not warranted.

That's nonsensical and would seem to require more pushback than pointing out that they wrote "Whose Conservative". Academics routinely cite their credentials, and by doing so they don't make any claim that they are representing the university as a whole.

She didn't cite her credentials, though: she had an auto-signature on her university account, and knows, as most of us do, that our institutions frown upon -- and often require -- us not to make overtly political statements that can be seen as having been authorized by the university. In fact, if it weren't for the auto-signature, the College Republicans likely wouldn't have even looked into who she was, as they no doubt receive quite a bit of similar responses from students.

Lastly, the comments on the linked article are plenty of proof that homophobia is alive and well on the right. The top few are all about how the professor must be transgendered, a crazy lesbian, etc.

I was going to address them in the post, but they were a bit too much so soon after lunch.

[Gas]

Grammar is one thing. Spelling and punctuation are another. What's more, non-standard grammar is not 'ungrammatical'. But that's irrelevant in this case, because here we have intentionally wrong spelling made such so that the pun could work better. Or at least that's what the author must've thought.

In short, I agree with Rich, that was a distraction that did not help an otherwise very relevant post.

[Ahistoricality]

I wasn't going to comment, but with multiple concern trolls here I thought it would be good to make it explicit: the bad grammar and punctuation are specific and additional evidence of the failure of the College Republicans to respect their audiences or to develop the skills necessary to appear serious in the public realm. And, given the known connection between reading and writing in quantity and good writing skills, error recognition, etc., it's also evidence against the CR's taking full advantage of their college opportunity.

[drip]

Grammar and punctuation contain meaning. Spelling doesn't necessarily have meaning, but look:
In her spare time, was written books....
In her spare time, [she] [h]as written books....
In her spare time, [she] was writ[ing] books....
In her spare time, [she] was writ[ing] books ...[!]
In her spare time, [she wrote} books...

What did the author mean? I have no idea. Bu I know he couldn't convey it to me.

So, the grammar is at the heart of the problem, not a distraction.

[tomemos]

Ahist, can we lighten our grip on the "troll" trigger? Concern trolling is bad-faith by definition. Are Rich and Gas arguing in bad faith just because they're in disagreement with Scott on something's importance? (This isn't the first time this has come up, either.)

[Rich Puchalsky]

Well... if we're going by blog rules, and my comment is a concern troll, then Scott's original bit is a grammar flame. There's nothing as pointless as a grammar flame, especially considering that Scott's own posts could easily be trolled for grammar corrections aplenty, as could essentially anything written on the Internet. (See also Ahist's "it's also evidence against the CR's taking full advantage of their college opportunity." That second apostrophe seems like bad grammar to me.)

But I actually have a larger point, which I've expressed here ad nauseum, but might as well one more time. I don't think that mockery of essentially powerless people is warranted, whether they are evil homophobes or not. Mockery of political and media figures is fine. Treating powerless people seriously and calling them evil homophobes is fine. But mocking the grammar of some dipwad college student is either assigning more power to them than they actually possess, or it's like mocking the homeless guy on the streetcorner. I don't expect other people to agree with me on this, but really, I think that people got used to a certain kind of mockery during the Bush years that just grates on me now that the GOP is out of power.

[Anonymous]

What is tenure not worth anything anymore?

Also it is obvious that college republicans believe in free speech for themselves, and not for others.

[Ahistoricality]

You have a long memory, Tomemos.

Rich, you're technically right about the second apostrophe according to standard prescriptive grammar. Remind me where I argued that a single error in a conversation is the same thing as repeated failings of basic expression in public statements?

now that the GOP is out of power.

That's cute.

[Rich Puchalsky]

Well... yeah, they're out of power. They control one legislative chamber, while the other and the Presidency are controlled by the Democrats. How much more out of power can you be, in a two-party state? Other than not in control of anything, which they were up until the midterm elections. Don't blame me for using perfectly good descriptors just because the Democrats don't want to use the power that they actually have.

The fact remains that the people who Scott is mocking are the lowest of the low in the GOP media circus. If it weren't for people like us taking about them, probably no one would ever even hear of them. I don't have a problem with calling more attention to them if that's done seriously: i.e., if it's about that these are homophobes trying to start a fight by mocking gay rights who have no idea what goes on in a university -- even though they are students -- because they're following some tired GOP anti-academic script. But mocking their grammar?

[Ahistoricality]

The federal system is not the only layer of authority in the US. When the Senate starts routinely confirming presidential appointees, when Republicans start losing governorships and statehouses, when the courts stop defining our rights out of existence and turning corporations into feudal overlords, when mainstream news media stops pretending that Obama's a liberal and Republican temper tantrums are news, when major Republican constituencies stop carrying out terrorist attacks on civil institutions and start getting treated like political pariahs, then we can talk about them being out of power.

[tomemos]

"You have a long memory, Tomemos."

I guess so. I haven't been brooding about that thread all this time, but the use of "troll"--which is pretty serious in an online discussion, or should be--struck me as weird then, and this one was even weirder so the connection jumped out at me immediately. And as long as I saw it I thought it was worth calling attention to.

[alkau]

Why is it that people do not read what they have written before they hit send? We assume college students know how to write using correct English or they would not be in college. It does bother me and it makes the statement stand out when I see it. But, what bothers me more is a hightly educated PhD who resorts to using bad language that will be seen by many including his present students. I do not like how easily he uses it and feel it is beneath him to do so. While he uses it in class to get the attention of students, he really should not make it part of his everyday life. So, SEK clean up your mouth and maybe you will get more respect!

[Adam Roberts]

I'm wary of chipping in here, as a bloody foreigner and everything, but this fascinates me as a small instance of the larger phenomenon, that risible Ayn Randian inversion embodied in 'going Galt'. What I mean is that agitating for all the inventors, factory owners and capitalists 'to go on strike' (how do you like them apples, lefties!) tacitly concedes that left-wing 'collective action', and something directly responsible, historically speaking, for massive amelioration of ordinary peoples' lives, is actually a really effective and powerful tool. Similarly, calling Liberals 'fascists' tacitly acknowledges that lefties' describing right-wing authoritarians 'fascist' is effective and has a point. The idiom of 'coming out of the closet' is a potent one, since it many people grok the justice in not compelling people to live a lie. Appropriating it like this is surely to concede that battle. How much more of this do we need before we start thinking: actually, the Right doesn't have any actual ideas of its own; Conservatives, like Tolkien's orcs, are not original creations, but left-wing elves perverted. (There's something on the right-wing appropriation of Christianity here, too: say what you like about Christ in the NT, he's much more radical communist than free-market moneyman).

[Adam Roberts]

Oops, html-tag fail there. Not my fault! It's the fucking Republicans'!

[Rich Puchalsky]

Conservatives do have ideas of a sort: they're strongly committed to racism, as evidenced by the whole birther movement. The problem is that all of their stereotyped social roles just aren't acceptable any more. Rather than "going Galt", they could "close down the plantation", and rather than calling liberals fascists, they could call them abolitionists. Instead of coming out of the closet, they could "break out the Rebel flag", etc.

I've attempted role reversal with whatever ideas of value the Right attempts to hold. For instance, I've pointed out that I'm a self-employed, provide-for-myself small businessperson, and that I know from personal experience what a barrier to business commercially provided health insurance can be. But that doesn't matter to libertarians et al, nearly all of whom are comfortably ensconced within large institutions that somehow don't count as large institutions because they aren't government.

Lastly: Tolkien's orcs? If I ever did write a novel, it would be a pastiche on Tolkien's orcs. But you have them the wrong way around: they are, as almost every left-wing writer of fantasy has pointed out, a hostile vision of left-wingers and their lower-class rabble. The elves are right-wing in the original, Burkean sense: they live forever, they know their place, and their society only very slowly changes. The orcs are even bad because they like technology.