Saida Grundy's Hate Students                                         Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

by DC Larson 

As has been reported by Socawlege.com, the Washington 

Post, CNN, Fox News, and others, incoming Boston 
University Sociology and African-American Studies 
Professor  Saida Grundy shared her hostile and 
historically innaccurate views in a recent series of  Twitter 
messages:

"White masculinity isn't a problem for america's [sic] 
colleges. White masculinity is THE problem for america's [sic] 
colleges" (In a subsequent tweet, she termed white males an 
inherently "problem population.")

"Every MLK week I commit myself to not spending a dime 
in a white-owned business, and every year I find it nearly 
impossible."

"For the record, NO race outside of europeans had a system 
that made slavery a personhood instead of temporary condition."

"There is also no race except for europeans who kidnaped 
and transported human beings in order to enslave them and 
their offspring for life."

"Before europeans invented it as such, slavery was not a 
condition that was defacto inherited from parent to child."

Damning an entire racial group as immutably wicked -- 
as traditionally understood, "racism" entails exactly that 
sort of condemnation. So that, it would seem, is that.

But there is a less sound definition -- one not objective, 
but conveniently partisan in nature, and of much newer 
vintage.
This curious construct holds that racism is a matter of
'oppressive structure,' and necessarily predicated on 
"access to levers of systemic, institutional political and 
economic influence." 
As such, goes the unwieldy propaganda line, racism is the
exclusive province of "the oppressing class." No one 
else can possibly be racist. At all. In any way. Ever. 
(And it gets worse: with  the contemporary coining of the 
"white privilege" concept, group-blaming can be extended 
into perpetuity.) 

By the first and clearly more objective definition, of course
Grundy's Twitter rants belied a racist nature. I'll leave that
second, rigged definition to trendy campus dyspeptics and
the self-aggrandizing drones of the fast-fading MSNBC. 

As press and public attention mounted, Grundy did issue a
faint 'apology.' But most who read it noted that while she
did call her original statements "indelicate," she did not
renounce their horrible philosophical foundation. And at
last reporting, Boston University remained by her - as it
should. 
Saida Grundy, I'll here note, is certainly not the
first maddened professor to argue ugly racial philosophies
from a cozy classroom perch. Among her predecessors in
gimmicky group-libeling are Leonard Jeffries and J. Phillip
Rushton. Grundy chose their path. It is to be hoped that she 
will soon follow them first into general disdain and, finally, 
well-deserved obscurity.

Popping onto Twitter to take up for her have been
unpleasant academics who share her nonsensical     'structural/institutional' hate rationale. A positive product of
all this, then, would be a focusing of the critical public
spotlight onto such ill-purposed scholarly charletons. Of
course, exploring unorthodox avenues and constructing
nontraditional theories are legitimate academic functions, not
ones to be discouraged. But it is doubtful that the hard -
working taxpayers who fund institutions of higher learning 
would be pleased to learn that they are providing for their 
own demise.

But the hate juice-stewing Grundy is but part of my concern.. 

Her more youthful and impressionable campus paracletes are purposefully parochial in their thinking, exactly as are white
racist theorists. Their paradigm depends for its utility on a
supposed inherantly inferior/dastardly demographic villian. In
that regard, it is fundamentally the same as the white racism
they oh-so -predictably espy all about, and of which they
fulminate spectacularly. 

Too, their shouldered mission shares another quality with the
white racist one. In each, believers sought social and political
power according to assumed group entitlement, and not
individuals' merit. 

(Regrettably, a scattered few vile white racist posters joined
the Twitter criticism of Grundy. The damage they've done
is two-fold: They are, of course, noxious and socially
injurious in their own right -- and I certainly object to them
no less vigorously than I do to Grundy -- and they give her
unethical backers the opportunity to misrepresent the occasional,
foul message as typifying the nature of Grundy's opposition.
Of course, when someone cultivates a disingenuous tactic, that
does signal that they are conscious of the frailty of their argument,
as well as proving character deficit on their own part. Too,
lending support to the bigoted professor have been a couple of
crude black racist posters. The present author does not know
whether Grundy would rejecttheir backing, as I just made a
point of denouncing white racists.) 

By her beclouded adolescent adherents' stunt-reasoning, all
of "white America" is the racist enemy -- save for themselves,
of course. Many of Grundy's raggedy collegiate stalwarts are
themselves white as can be. They just never quite get about
the business of accounting for that rip in their pretended
reality. To the motley Grundyites -- unsophisticated,
unintellectual, and unflaggingly PC (whatever that is, this
week), all persons can be neatly compartmentalized into two
camps: themselves and "right wingers." 

That cheap and cowardly tactic allows them to simply sweep
aside without consideration all contrary arguments, never
mind how such might be reasoned. It is the way, not of
reasonable persons, but of tyrants. 

It is simple to seem victorious and of great nobility when
jousting a fictitious foe of one's own crafting. But it is a lie,
and I will not let it pass unexposed.

In their foolish play, they do not acknowledge, and perhaps
do not even grasp, that they do not own anti-racism. There is a
purer, more principled form that, unlike their callow, flawed
model, objects equally and as a matter of genuine, unvarying
principle to all racial bigotry, regardless of its source; one
which is hardly 'of the right,' being further ideologically
distanced from that bent than they are.

They may one day grow to understand that, or they may not.
But they are a dull and distastelul lot, and I honestly do not care.

end

.