As Ron Hebron noted in an earlier SP post, an instructor at Bellevue Community College included a question on a math test about someone named Condoleezza dropping a watermelon. But it turned out to be about the velocity of the Internet, not the watermelon. People were understandably outraged. Somehow it's racist to object to continued illegal immigration, but OK to use old racist code against black Republicans, the idea being they are "Toms" if they are GOP. The Seattle Times now reports there's going to be no discipline for the instructor, but a whole lot of hoo-haw at BCC about "pluralism."
In Bellevue. To ensure non-discriminatory treatment of Republicans. Is this actually a sign of how purple our Eastside suburbs have become? Hey: no more Seattle-bashing, suburban SP readers! Eastside libs are apparently just as brain-damaged as ours! Yet in the end, blatant moonbattery is no dismissable "act of desperation" when it occurs under the auspices of a publicly funded institution, such as B-E-L-L-E-V-U-E Community College.
Now. Brace yourself for extreme courage. Bold steps to be taken at the college are:
Creation of a vice president of Equity and Pluralism position; creation of an Ombudsman position; increased funding for pluralism training and development; tracking data that illuminate places where the college fails to provide excellence to all students; a pluralism component in program review and employee evaluations; (and) having professional development days focus on pluralism, especially in the upcoming year, for faculty and staff.
Oy. "Pluralism" is just another word for non-discriminatory treatment that is already supposed to be gospel. Maybe we need state legislation to ensure non-discrimination against Republicans. Yeah.....that's it. Really, though. The instructor should be suspended for a month without pay, and any college officials who downplayed the original complaint should be made to defend their actions in disciplinary proceedings, too. There's a moral to this story that won't really play out at BCC, but that Condoleezza Rice knows well from a life of hard work and outstanding accomplishment: actions have consequences.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at April 13, 2006 07:52 PM | Email ThisHeck they are probably going to get grant money for the position.
Posted by: Smokie on April 13, 2006 09:11 PMIt is in no way clear from the facts presented, however, that the slur had any partisan political motivation. The prof may well have been a Trent Lott/Strom Thurmond/David Duke Republican for all we know.
Conservatives are adept at slurring their own, as John McCain learned in the 2000 South Carolina primary, where voters were blasted with push poll calls inquiring how they would feel about a GOP candidate who sired an "illegitimate black child." (McCain and his wife adopted a Bangladeshi girl some years before.)
So, Matt, if you have any proof that the math prof's ugly slur was motivated by politics or ideology, please present it.
This site, of course, is no stranger to sub rosa slurs and innuendos (e.g., http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/005338.html). Therefore one cannot help but find it a bit, shall we say, disingenuous, to see the crimson flag of racial sensitivity (or at least sensitivity to those much-maligned Black Republicans) being waved here.
So Matt, if you have more gory details, please tell all. Otherwise, methinks you are a bit fast on the draw in implying that foul actions are the province of your ideological foes.
We all know that the teacher won't be disciplined because he/she racially attacked a conservative black woman. They will give him/her a raise and tenure soon.
and bartleby--no motivation? i don't buy it--of all the 1000's of names, why that one? chance? maybe, but unlikely; some obvious simple truths are just that--no more;
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on April 13, 2006 10:38 PMAs for pluralism, sounds like a code word for allowing questions with conservative racial slurs on tests, as long as they make sure to include liberal racial slurs as well. You know, like affirmative action. And it fits in well too with education policy in this state. Throw more money at it, yeah, that'll solve it.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 13, 2006 11:58 PMEspecially considering how well such legislation has worked in Seattle. Yes, Seattle does have an ordinance forbidding job discrimination for political reasons. (I don't know if it applies to the UW.)
Posted by: Jim Miller on April 14, 2006 04:35 AMI'm guessing bartelby likes poking the stick into the bear cage. His post was designed to disrupt, nothing more. Give it the response it deserves...none.
Posted by: South County on April 14, 2006 06:01 AMThe professor sounds like a stupid racist. And you folks should know a bit about that. After all, your hero Mr. Reagan kicked off his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Mississipi, site of the murders of civil rights workers Cheney, Schwerner and Goodman. Mr. Reagan larded his speech with ample references to "states' rights" -- a favorite code term of Southern racists. That's just one telling example, of which there are MANY more (Nixon's Southern Strategy, Goldwater's "hunt where the ducks are," Willie Horton, etc.).
So when y'all start getting pious about racism I find it just a bit hard to stomach. When you lie down with dogs, you get fleas, so I have utterly no sympathy if you folks are feeling a bit itchy.
Posted by: bartelby on April 14, 2006 07:10 AMBartleboob appears genetically incapable of analyzing and processing an obvious slur without injecting a tu quoque into it.
Bravo bartleboob, as a liberal apologist you may suck, but at least you suck consistently!
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 14, 2006 07:40 AMThe reality is that we just don't want schools and test questions to become a hotbed of their professors' political expression. The kids are there to learn the physics of falling objects.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 14, 2006 08:40 AMWhy do I believe this is all part of a plot and we are mere dolls in the BCC dollhouse?
And seriously - where is Attorney General McKennna on this?!?!?!?!?! As I've said before, he sits on the school's Foundation board.
Posted by: A Watchdog on April 14, 2006 08:52 AMGrand. And not surprising in the least.
As has been stated many times, does anyone truly believe that this same instructor would have posed the same question using the names Al or Jesse or Barack? If so, what planet have they been living on for the last few decades?
Posted by: Brad R. Torgersen on April 14, 2006 08:55 AMWhen conservatives say something no leftie asks for "What evidence is there that this stupid act was born of partisan political motives". It is straight off to re-education camps and then firing.
The double standard over something that most here would just brush off as stupid but libs jump all over it in one direction only.
Posted by: Fred on April 14, 2006 09:25 AMAnother troll talking about the things he/she/it knows best ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 14, 2006 12:22 PMWhy didn't the instructor just leave it alone?
What compelled the teacher to remove Gallagher and insert Condoleeza? Bartelby?
Gallagher makes more sense - who else has it in for watermelons as much as he does?
Pluralism? What about respect? How about no discrimination - for any reason? Why start yet another program that demands more taxpayer money?
Enforce current rules and laws for a change.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on April 14, 2006 12:26 PMWhat has happened to the notion of personal responsibility? Y'all here seem to be quite happy grovelling in your pity party boobocracy self-admiration fraternity and blaming every social ill on the big bad Liberal Bogeyman. Mencken was right. Society descends to the lowest common denominator, and this is Exhibit A.
MORE AMUSING THAN JON STEWART: The fact that you unsmirkingly entertain the notion that Christian heterosexual white men are some sort of disadvantaged class. I salute you for your chutzpah, if not your sapience.
Rove and his kin have mastered that game, but we progressives ain't playing no more. It's time to (factually, and ideologically) put up or shut up.
As the saying goes, politics ain't beanbag. You folks have come to expect patsies on our side for far to long. Ain't so no more. So, go ahead and bring on your usual craven mendacity and we'll see how it works.
In a speech several years ago Ronald Reagan meant to quote John Q. Adams. He said: "Facts are stupid things." The actual quote was: "Facts are stubborn things."
Nuff said.
Posted by: bartelby on April 14, 2006 09:31 PM
You're projecting again bartleboob....
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 15, 2006 10:13 AMWho can eat the watermelon faster. a) a buck toothed stupid ho or a doddering old cracker with his fingers in the Bush?
Posted by: Dicked Chainey on April 17, 2006 04:06 AMWho can eat the watermelon faster. a) a buck toothed stupid ho or a doddering old cracker with his fingers in the Bush?
Posted by: Dicked Chainey on April 17, 2006 04:07 AMI kept waiting for the punchline. Eventually they went to commercial. I started thinking that I’d misheard, or that it was some sort of joke at the listeners’ expense. The callers seemed equally angry, though, and after a while it was clear that the watermelon was the issue.
This bothered me, since having arrived at work, I couldn’t exactly start searching online or asking coworkers about racial slur trivia. I mean, it was obvious who Condoleezza was, and based on that, the Federal building was a good enough setting. Physicists have been dropping things from tall places since there have been both physicists and tall places, and everyone has seen egg drops (to protect the eggs), or pumpkin drops (to destroy the pumpkins), or bad comedians smashing watermelons (apparently, to destroy good comedy in America). If people were angry about it, there was obviously something there to be angry about, but I had no idea.
The magic of Search, Wikipedia and angry people posting various things have since informed me of this stereotype. It’s sad to see, it was just a fruit to me. I mean, does cantaloupe have a dark, unmentionable past? Should I hold my opinions about carrots to myself, or are vegetables safe still a safe topic for conversation? Is there something wrong with admitting that apples are my favorite fruit? One article admonished me, in reference to an apparently offensive photograph featuring wet melons, to know the stereotype, to bring my questions to historians, and to be aware of the context in which I was using such an image. Of course, this is all sound advice, and I am guilty of not knowing the stereotype, but I’d never have considered a watermelon (or a stack of them) to have been more controversial than a picture of any other food. On the list of things to bring up with my historian on our next meeting, it wasn’t exactly at the top. Had it not been for an angry radio show host, I would never have known about the issue.
I suppose my point is that it’s not necessarily true that everyone knows the same stereotypes. My years of enjoying it as food, as seeing it as something good for picnics, or as a snack after soccer games still tell me that this is absurd. I hold a high degree, my university was very diverse and my studies brought me in contact with many people of cultures and upbringings different from my own. Knowing what I do now, yes, the question could be considered racist at a bit of a stretch, but I still empathize with the teacher who wrote the question. It’s possible to have gone through life without making a connection between fruit and slavery. In the position of the teacher, I’d likely have requested training as well, just to know what other seemingly innocent topics to watch for. Though it seems not to be the case, I’d hope that people would see this for the unfortunate mistake it was and move on without trying to fire anyone or close down a school.