As many of you might have already heard, the Jena Six incident found an odd resonance at Columbia University in NY. A noose was hung outside an African-American professor’s office door on Tuesday morning. The past two days have seen student protests, press conferences, and emotional meetings with university officials. The NYPD hate crimes unit is testing the rope for DNA.
The professor, Madonna G. Constantine, whose specialty is race, racial identity and multiculturalism, stood before protesters at midday and thanked her supporters… “I think we are all pretty much mystified as to why it happened,†said George A. Bonanno, a professor of psychology. “This is an institution that prides itself on having open dialogue about race and fairly progressive ideas.â€
At an afternoon news conference, Deputy Inspector Michael Osgood, commander of the New York Police Department’s Hate Crimes Task Force, said, “Right now we have no suspects, but we will go down all investigative pathways.†He ruled out any possibility that Professor Constantine had hung the rope herself. link
So amidst the uproar, why has Columbia University refused to turn over security video tape to the police?
Police and students remain baffled as this move only ignites conspiracy theories. Not to further fan the flames here, but the Associated Press, New York Magazine, and that bastion of rational thought, The New York Post, have already named another professor at Columbia involved in a legal tussle with Constantine:
Court records show Constantine filed a defamation lawsuit in May against another professor of psychology and education, Suniya S. Luthar. The one-page filing in Manhattan’s state Supreme Court also accuses Luthar of libel and slander and asks for $100,000 in damages. The single page was signed only by Constantine and does not indicate if she had a lawyer. Luthar declined to discuss the lawsuit. She wouldn’t say if she had spoken with police about the noose. “I think it is an unspeakably ghastly, horrible incident,” she said Thursday.link
Any current of former students at Columbia care to comment on this? Ever had Constantine or Luthar as teachers? This case grows murkier by the day, but no matter the outcome, it’s dismaying to realize we’re so far from ever becoming a race-blind society.
Re 49:
muralimannered, it’s been done before. The initial salvos might have been lobbed by C. P. Snow in his 1959 lecture The Two Cultures, but matters came to a head during the Science Wars of the ’90s: see, in particular, Gross and Levitt’s Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels With Science, the Sokal hoax in Social Text, and Sokal and Bricmont’s Impostures Intellectuelles (US edition: Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science).
And while Razib might be a registered Republican, even liberal/left-leaning scientists like me have had issues with certain aspects of cultural studies and postmodernist analysis.
Re 50:
Er, generally it’s the tenured faculty who “can do just about anything they feel like.” Tenure-track faculty, with the possibility of future tenure suspended above them like the Sword of Damocles, tend to be quite circumspect about their words and actions. That said, I don’t know what fate befell you, and I am quite aware that abuse does occasionally occur, so you have my sympathies.
At the risk of overgeneralizing, in my field, the impression is that students of either East Asian or South Asian origin tend to have a better work ethic, and are actually interested in postgraduate academic work. I am inclined to think that that might have more to do with their being appreciated.
There was another noose found downtown infront of NY Post office.
shaad,
i’m familiar with the sokal hoax, gross and levitt’s book as well as c.p. snow’s book. I used to entertain grand fantasies of living in the post-modern academic world as well, till I decided that it wasn’t worth the years of living at the subsistence level while doing research for a dissertation. I believe there was also a marxist scholar at a very small college in Virginia who wrote a good article asking, after a fashion, when ‘the post-colonial’ actually began. It seemed to be far more fashionable abroad, even when I was in college, than at home (although that may have had more to do with the conservative nature of my college). Dipesh Chakrabarty’s old stomping ground, Melbourne University, was flush with a lively crop of post-colonial scholars and aspirants to the same line of work.
hate to say this, but i think she did it herself because (1) to get publicity for her work on racism –she would otherwise be just another obscure researcher; (2)to cast doubt on her rival. also, this sort of thing would be very unlikely to occur at a place like Columbia.
manju, you’re awesome. for a conservative 🙂 may you get all the tax breaks that you want. but only those that you can get with the help of a conniving CPA and offshore accounts, not ones that crazy presidents decree without good reason.
razib, fair enough. however, the conclusion is persuasive only when the narrative is bolstered with convincing evidence. i’m sure you’re well-aware of the subjectivity in methodology that many scientists simply ignore in characterizing their disciplines. no one paradigm of knowing is inherently complete and appropriate to illuminate a problem. ultimately, i think it just comes down to this – good scholarship and bad scholarship. reasonable people, i hope, will appreciate both rawls and nozick because of the beauty of the framework they choose to employ in their reasoning. refusing to engage with people on the basis of their political leanings (i’m not accusing you of this, btw) or judging the weight of an argument primarily on the basis of its disciplinary affiliation, seems to be problematic. i hear you, though, on some of the terrible writing that is associated with some PoMo and PoCo people.
Shaad #53:
Sorry I meant tenure. But now that you bring it up, I like to think of the tenure-track as bullies-in-training. I remember how one young professor would wag her finger at the students–students older, more experienced and definitely more knowledgeable than her. Another young arrogant jerk threatened to shoot the students. Not all tenure-track faculty are on probation and to figure out who is and who isn’t you’d have to have a fine meter on the internal politics.
As for impressions–one professor told me he grades by impression (none of the assigned work had ever been graded). So I wouldn’t put too much weight on impression. In any case, my impression is that the East-South Asian graduate student work ethic is a hoax perpetuated mostly by (white) American and British professors (or oftentimes employers). I’m thinking now of one particular professor who told me he would only work with Chinese students–he seriously thought that he could get away with this sort of thing and yes he did. Courtesy Google, I uncovered the fact that he comes from a Scottish colonial family with assets in Australia (gold mines), South Africa, Jamaica, and yes good old Virginia (plantations you know). Perhaps master-serf relationships come naturally to them.
I’ll probably have rotten tomatoes hurled my way, but I have been dealing with rotten, stinky tomatoes like the aforementioned for a good long time now and I stand by my hard-won impressions.
for all the rah rah about the noose, police investigation, etc. – was there any crime committed? It wasn’t even vandalism as in drawing something on a wall. It wasn’t an assault as in “get ready– we’re going to hang you” because the woman wasn’t there and wasn’t even the one that found the noose. Nothing suggests that there was an actual intent or threat to injure the woman or anyone else. I say it’s a non-issue, not even as serious as bathroom scrawl, which actually necessitates someone cleaning it up.
It was the lack of a crime that prompted all that jena rah rah too. Protesters wanted a “hate crime” charge leveled at whoever put up the noose, but hate crime designation can only accompany an actual crime, and no crime was committed in putting a noose on a tree at night.
just as an aside. many elite colleges have tried to socioeconomically ‘diversify’ and ‘combat’ this in recent years, which means more outreach and courting during the admissions process, fewer loans-more grants financial aid policies, etc. personally i feel like they’re only trying this in a very tokenizing way, much like racial diversity is on most campuses, and without acknowledging the reality that they are only able to have more low-income students if the other students and alumni continue to be filthy rich. as for campus identity politics, there are no ‘poor student alliances’ that i know of, and based on what i’ve seen, i feel like race is still a divisive factor among those who come from working class/not-rich backgrounds. poor/not-rich white kids feel that class ‘trumps’ race and feel awkward because the white kids they hang out with are unknowingly incredibly pretentious, and poor/not-rich black kids would rather hang out with other black kids regardless of class. i do think that it is a noble effort for elite campuses to take socioeconomic background into account when looking at applications, but i do wish they would be more upfront about why they do any of this, or how they are able to do it.
that is completely not what any of the hullabaloo is about. it’s because when the white kids beat up the black kids they got charged with assault and got probation, but when the black kids beat up the white kids, they got charged with attempted murder and got jail sentences. biased criminal justice system, anyone?
Jena 6 case and this case are not the same.
They lived in a town where the idea of blacks gathering under a white tree was seen as outrageous. Everybody knows what the symbolism of it was. What made the incident blow out of proportion wasnt merely becasue the whites didnt get arrested. What made the situation get to a boiling point was a series of incidents starting with the white board members trying to dismiss it as a harmless prank. And then the DA threatening to ruin the black kids lives if anyone had the temerity to make noise about this. It also led to a few other incidents down the line and a pattern of the DA undercharging white participants and overcharging black participants was too easy to notice. It took a whole year for the Jena 6 marches to get that organized.
This case seems like an isolated instance. Some moron could be getting his kicks this way or has a misplaced sense of revenge on mind.
Somewhere right now HMF is praying to his picture of Malcolm x and wishing that a white person is behind this at Columbia University, so he can then go off on one of his all white people are racists rants.
cookiebrown @ 21,
just a little bit confused by the tone (and i realize you can’t really relate that exactly in words on a blog). you quoted me because we both made the same point right? or did i say something different?
Clueless, it is unlikely that the person who did it is not white, considering how things go. With the rash of blackface/Latino/a mocking parties across the country, the vast majority of the participants were white, though occasionally there was a person of color or two in the crowd. If it did happen to be another person of color, they would be flaunting a symbol of white supremacist terrorization. Your sarcasm is really pathetic.
It is also sickening that anyone would find “funny” a symbol of mob violence.
Not everyone who reads this blog / comments is an American and the whole noose episode has me in splits.
The comment was an outsider and I stand by it. Melbourne in my handle refers to the city in Oz not the one in Florida.
Not in Oz. We have our own lynchings – ‘breed out the black’ was a common refrain of white settlers.
I totally disagree, nala. I think there are plenty of desis who are actively hateful, but they back up racist policies. It seems more benign because it is more difficult to point out, whereas a burning cross or burning someone in effigy is a clear symbol to respond to.
Ok people from the land of “Oz” — it is FINE that you do not have a social-historical understanding of what a noose means in the U.S. For your clarification, it is similar to burning a cross in someone’s front yard. Given its obvious role as a symbol of race-based terrorism, it is NOT funny or hilarious regardless of what your social context is. Further, it is OFFENSIVE (and reprehensible, and disgusting) to continue to argue that it is funny even after someone has clarified its intent to you. If you find bombing people’s homes, terrorizing them, killing their children, beating them to the point of death or severe disability, hanging and burning them alive, etc., funny, then I would recommend that good manners dictate that you refrain from telling everyone else that you find this entertaining.
“that is completely not what any of the hullabaloo is about. it’s because when the white kids beat up the black kids they got charged with assault and got probation, but when the black kids beat up the white kids, they got charged with attempted murder and got jail sentences. biased criminal justice system, anyone?”
attention to the facts of the case, anyone? The black kids never got beat up, especially not on school grounds or to any point requiring hospitalization. The feeling was that their knocking the white kid out and stomping him should not have been “attempted murder” because the white kid’s injuries weren’t as severe as what they felt attempted murder should have been. Fine, perhaps the charges should have been some sort of assault and battery, whatever you like. Keep in mind the perpetrator was already on probation for punching a teenage girl in the face, which does often merit a DA going for a stronger charge.
There are plenty of places where one can find horrid racial injustice. “Jena Six” is showtime.
noblekinsman – I gave a very general synposis of the situation, which is obviously more complicated, to point out what it is that so many people find reprehensible about the situation. And witness testimonies are conflicting about some party at which a group of black students might have gotten attacked.
Camille – I see what you mean, but I did mean overt signs of racism like nooses, etc. People like Dinesh D’Souza are definitely harmful though.
Just to clarify, noblekinsman you’re right in that I mischaracterized the situation in Jena in my initial ‘synposis.’ But if you look news about racially charged events happening in the town for over the past year, it’s clear that white defendants (if they’re even charged with anything) are getting lighter sentences than black defendants, and the Mychal Bell case is the best example of that.
And FWIW, I’m not entirely sure that I think hanging a noose should be a crime punishable with jail time (assuming there is no physical harm done). Community service or some sort of racism therapy, but jail time? I find that hard to justify.
“I’m not entirely sure that I think hanging a noose should be a crime punishable with jail time (assuming there is no physical harm done).”
It is NOT a crime and should not be a crime. It is protected speech. I can hate you all day long and show you nooses, mock your dead ancestors, and hate your race and your soul. I just can’t use the noose on you or credibly threaten to. Which comes back to the Columbia case. No crime was committed. I don’t even think it can be construed as a defacement of property.
There are huge sentencing discrepancies, and all sorts of racial problems in judicial system. Jena garbage isn’t symbolic of them. Charging someone with attempted murder for stomping out an unconscious person is fair. Much of the jena protesters’ argument when it comes to specifics of the case ends up being “the kid didn’t look that hurt,” which is possibly because people pulled the attackers off, and further is irrelevant to attempted murder (if you shoot and miss, you didn’t hurt anyone but you attempted murder). It’s iffy at best. Perhaps the kid got charged a bit too harshly. That’s it. Then the question becomes, well does a racist perhaps deserve to get stomped? Maybe. But I think drunk hipsters deserve to get stomped. Nevertheless, it’s illegal to do so, and that’s a good law.
again an example that is america-centric (means squat).
Equating the noose with the aforementioned deeds requires quite a leap of faith.
I equate the noose to Americans poking fun at the Indian accent. Unlike the Don Imus comment – that was criminal behaviour.
bowing and scraping – yes massa – i need a sound spanking 😉
I equate the noose to Americans poking fun at the Indian accent.
No, a better analogy is painting a swastika on a Jewish professor’s door. It is a pointed reminder of a time when your people could be murdered with impunity.
And yes, I realize I’m going to the Godwin’s Law place, but I think the comparison is justified in this instance.
I’m not American either, but I understand the context of the “noose” just as I do understand swastikas (in the nazi sense) and burning crosses.
Yep, there’s definitely a huge difference between poking fun at someone and putting a symbol of death purposely up within their view. Words and items have no intrinsic meaning or value aside the value assigned to them, however such an item as a noose has a pretty wide interpretation in American culture, and that assigned interpretation is commonly “death by hanging”. It’s not the same as putting black roses outside her door or even writing a derogatory name on her door. It was meant to convey something very specific.
And yes, I realize I’m going to the Godwin’s Law place, but I think the comparison is justified in this instance.
It’s very justified. if not moreso, given that the incident happened in the United States, and not Germany.
Somewhere right now HMF is praying to his picture of Malcolm x and wishing that a white person is behind this at Columbia University,
Shouldn’t I be praying to David Duke for that? Or Clueless?
Irony is.. Malcolm was actually shot at the Audobon Ballroom, not too far from Columbia.
i apologize for responding on this thread to hmf‘s remarks (this and this among others) on the facebook post, but apparently he has been engaging in his usual charming behavior and the post has since been closed, which leaves me without a forum to respond on. i would appreciate it if you could let my response stand, or add it to the other post.
hmf, this is my last response to you on this discussion.
if a guy actually makes some statements against your usual misogynist frothing, it is because he wants to get in women’s pants, and women of course are incapable of contributing effectively to the discussion since you and you alone have had the unique vantage to explore both male and female behaviors and are specially qualified to posit laughable theories that sound like they have been extracted from reading the equivalents of self-help books written by pick-up artists like mystery and the game. and if none of these work, adopt the age-old strategy of ad hominem against the commenter. it seems an easy way to just dismiss arguments that don’t agree with your contorted world views without actually engaging with the points in them.
i am sure your analysis of human interactions that constantly focuses on the follies of whites and women has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you are a male person of color (and for all that, i even agree with a lot of your opinions about racism in the us). but seeing this would require more self awareness than you seem capable of. surely, even you must have wondered why every discussion you get into on any matter of substance ends up in abuse and vituperation, while this doesn’t happen for other commenters. you seem to confuse being wrong, obnoxious and unpopular with actually being correct and courageous. or maybe this is just your coping mechanism. as with every other problem in the world, you always blame the other person rather than seeing it as a consequence of your bushian defensive and insecure attitude of “you are either with me or against me”, but seem to be left without a response when actually shown an instance where you spewed your hate filled spitballs with absolutely no reason. as usual, you adopted your usual “debating” strategy of cherry picking sentences so you didn’t have to address anything uncomfortable.
sm intern, you might want to consider why hmf’s quoting misogynist lyrics with a sham apology was considered acceptable, but a response with similar lyrics was not. even by the limited definition of civility being “low” profanity, you must have noticed his nastiness to commenter after commenter in multiple posts. hey, you decided to get into the messy business of censorship after all!
melbourne desi, I don’t care what you equate the noose to. I am explaining to you what it means to Americans to provide context so that it’s easier to understand why people would react strongly to your assessment. My goal is to engage in dialogue so that there are concrete images for you to connect to. It is not a stretch to equate a noose (hello?! lynching?) with the entire widespread era of systematic and public violence towards African Americans in the U.S. I don’t say this for you to hit back with, “Oh, well if it’s not an Australian example I will continue to laugh because it is soooo funny.” I know you are smarter than that.
I also understand that you’re joking about my comment at the end re: good manners, and this is not directed solely to you, but comparing me to a slave owner because I value an e-space that promotes continuous dialogue as opposed to one that devolves into HMF vs. Manju nonsense is really inappropriate. I am not a fascist, nor am I the PC-police, nor am I a slave owner, so please come up with a more creative (and accurate) description for what you’re trying to say or just do one better and refrain from calling me names.
Mary, the analogy was warranted.
given that in all likelihood it was Ahmadinejad who scrawled the swastika and yarmukle wearing jew cartoon on the CU bathroom wall, perhaps we consider the theory that he mistook the good professor for a homosexual (which of course is just a western social construction as prof massad instructs us).
there are some intersting 1st ammendment questions at stake here, though at the end of the day threats of physical violence are not protected speech, as one’s rights naturally end where another’s begin. this can be reasonably interpreted as a threat, not unlike jena, and one cannot send a note to another person saying “i’m going to kill you” even if one has no intention of doing it.
the problem is that such incidents are highly contextualized, and there is often a high degree of subjectivity since in other contexts, this would be protected speech. more problematic, for example, is the pace university koran flushing incident, which straddles the line between jena and serrano’s piss christ.
and as much as i’d like to witness the spectacle of cuban american suing hollywood movie stars for wearing che guevara t-shirts, hate speech in the abstract must be protected. hate crime legislation has many sympathisers on the right, as even sean hannity and bill o reilly want severe punishment for the noose hangers, in part because they want to also ban americn flag burning and restrict govt grants for anti-christian art.
already there is a nys assemblyman who wants to introduce a law that criminalizes noose-hanging. this leaves the libertarian right and the old fashioned aclu types alone to fight for a classic liberal interpretation of the free speech doctrine. ban cross burning and noose hanging in the abstract, and you can rest assured next comes flying a hammer and sickle or burning an American flag.
hey, hmf vs. manju is nothing if not continuous.
I’m not sure what the legal definition of a threat is in New York, but hanging a noose, is definitely threatening within American history and I’m sure in other parts of the world too. I’m sure my parents, who haven’t really paid attention to American history even though they live in the US, would be worried sick if someone hung that on my door (no American context is needed; i’m sure they wouldn’t think that someone was just trying to decorate my door) – What is merely free speech and what transgresses into unprotected speech that has potential for violence, I’m not sure in NY what that is. Maybe a New York lawyer can explain?
Thank you.
No name calling intended although it is an interesting thought – to be your slave that is 🙂
Any updates on this story?
hey, hmf vs. manju is nothing if not continuous.
As Orwell said, the war is not meant to be won, it’s meant to be continuous.
, but seem to be left without a response when actually shown an instance where you spewed your hate filled spitballs with absolutely no reason
DL, if you must know, it was this statement of yours that I considered first blood. Not to mention this. Instead of whine about it, I bit back.
I’d respond to the rest of your tome, but I do indeed try and respect the mods attempt to keep threads on track and topic.