At least a week too late, Bellevue Community College has made it known it will begin a disciplinary proceeding against the professor who ignited justifiable outrage by linking - in a math quiz question - our nation's (black) Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to a watermelon. That fruit being a long-standing symbol used in racist charicatures of poor, rural African-Americans. Of course, this is not the first time Condy has been subject to crude racial animus, is it? Funny how that works.
BCC President Jean Floten's fitness to continue serving in that position is already highly questionable given the school's slow response to the outrage. The outcome of the disciplinary proceeding will be a further indication - one way or another - of whether the school's board of directors should begin separation negotiations with Floten or not.
I think the instructor - who has now issued a lame, unconvincing apology (second link, above) - ought to be fired. That's clearly what would be happening if the black person he linked to a watermelon were a liberal, rather than a conservative Republican appointee of President George W. Bush. At the very least, the teacher deserves the First Annual Rickey Hendon Demeanment Speech Award, plus a three-month suspension without pay.
I must have missed the editorials in both Seattle dailies about the heinous BCC incident. Can someone send the links?
UPDATE, 17:28, 4/20/06: I was out enjoying my beautiful city with my children, or would have posted this sooner. This Seattle Times editorial dated two days ago voices concerns about the incident and commends the college for taking actions to address diversity and inclusion. There is no call for disciplinary proceedings, or punishment for the instructor.
UPDATE: 13:13, 4/21/06: The Times has another editorial on the matter, today, here.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at April 20, 2006 02:24 PM | Email ThisHe can be used as an example for the next time a conservative says something that is totally unexceptable by the libs (in other words reasonable) of how to respond.
Posted by: Fred on April 20, 2006 03:05 PMFirst of all, do you know that this Instructor has used this same question (using a different name - Gallagher) for many years? And now we have to suffer insipid commentary simply because he changes the NAME of the character in the question?
This is a MATH QUESTION. It is for a MATHEMATICS CLASS. It is not a POLITICAL SCIENCE class or a HISTORY class. It is a class about MATHEMATICS (which happens to be a SCIENCE, for those of you with enough education to understand what that means).
I guarantee you that if he had used a name like Jun (a CHINESE name) that Asian people would not be screaming their lungs out that it was somehow an offense. No, the Asian students would be LEARNING something and SOLVING THE MATH PROBLEM, GETTING THE CORRECT ANSWER TO THE STORY PROBLEM. That is the objective of the question - to provide a situation that the students could use to LEARN and ACHIEVE.
I suspect that the Instructor's political leanings are leftist. And I am not a leftist, not by a very long shot. But a person's political inclinations have NOTHING to do with learning MATHEMATICS. (And yes, I have studied mathematics extensively - I have a PhD in Engineering.)
This entire issue is the biggest waste of time I have seen for a very long time. I am especially disheartened to have CONSERVATIVES jumping on this bandwagon. There isn't an issue here to be jumping on, apart from the fact that there are far too many citizens who do not have even the most rudimentary skills with regards to MATHEMATICS. Conservatives took the bait on this one, to their detriment. The "name" the Instructor chose for this story problem has nothing to do with anything. If you are going to get "excited" then please do so for something that warrants excitement. This does not.
Posted by: Mark Chopper on April 20, 2006 03:06 PMAnd last time I checked, the First Amendment did not grant public employees the right to make apparent racial/political statements under the guise of student math tests.
Leaders in the black community said they were doubtful of Ratener's sincerity.
I love it when liberals eat their own.
Posted by: jimg on April 20, 2006 03:23 PMIf you changed the name to Jun or Brian or Bill it would not invoke images of any particular person, and even the use of Malcolm or Martin might not inspire a negative response because those are also common names for many different races. But what if the name was Rhoshonda or Shanice or Darnell? You would very likely get a strong and immediate response from the NAACP and everyone else. Ask yourself why the instructor, after "many years" of using Gallegher chose to change it, and more importantly why he chose that particular name. How many Condeleeza's do you know? And how many of them are black?
I think the more important question is: why was the outrage so slow to build over this obviously recist statement.
Posted by: Kim on April 20, 2006 03:31 PMHumor or insult?
"If we'd only known they'd use airplanes as missles..." Condi Rice pretending the department she heads had no idea at all, what a surprise.
Uh huh.
Posted by: Wells on April 20, 2006 03:41 PM
take your racist claptrap somewhere else. @sshat
Posted by: libertarianobserver on April 20, 2006 03:50 PMhttp://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/living/education/14331100.htm
Vigilance, vigilance!
Posted by: Jake on April 20, 2006 04:07 PMKristen, you ought to be a spin doctor. They make big bucks. Your answer was halfway palatable. Some people of your persuasion would buy the argument hook, line and sinker.
Of course the instructor was being racist.
Posted by: swatter on April 20, 2006 04:10 PMFor those of you on the free speech bandwagon, keep in mind that the Constitution doesn't state you are immune from the consequences of your actions. You're the same hypocrites that see nothing wrong with Kerry getting a less than honorable discharge but give Bush crap about his service.
If BCC was really sincere about resolving this issue, they should have had the professor issue a public apology right away like the lawmaker in Olympia did after his unfortunate use of an old phrase. As it is, they have done too little, too late.
Posted by: Burdabee on April 20, 2006 04:15 PMWhat this is about is politics. The instructor acted unprofessionally in this matter simply because the person disagrees with the current administration.
That level of unprofessionalism is what should be at issue here, not some ginned up controversy over watermelons.
It's despicable when race-baiters like the NAACP, Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson try to make race an issue.
I don't think our side needs to waste any time trying to play the same game.
Teddy drives his car onto a 200 foot long, 20 foot wide wooden bridge at a 30 degree angle at 50 miles per hour. The bridge is 15 feet above the water. How far along the bridge will the car leave the roadway? At what velocity will the car hit the water?
Or how about Marion is in a hotel room with a skanky hoe fireing up his glass pipe...
Posted by: JDH on April 20, 2006 04:36 PMAh yes, the old "some of my best friends are black". Good one. Perhaps the good professor should have used that in his statement.
Posted by: Palouse on April 20, 2006 04:40 PMAnd if an instructor at a public college were to put the Teddy question on a test, that would be unprofessional too and potentially worthy of some sort of disciplinary action.
Or if he wrote...
Rumsfeld drops a 500 pound bomb on a village of Iraqi women and orphans from a B-52 bomber at 55,000 feet....
or...
Clinton drops a load on an intern from five feet away...how long...
Having professors, or "instructors" in this matter, who feel the urge to express their political beliefs to their students is the issue here. These people need to be nuetral in their educational presentations. Or if they can't be nuetral, at least they should have the professionalism to state that this is what their personal opinion is before they teach their students.
The fact that this little tempest in a teapot is actually national news now shows the unprofessionality of my "colleagues".
Clearly most people have not even made any attempt to READ the actual question. No, that's not important at all. Let's just take one sentence and ASSUME we know the whole story!
And again, who gives one God Damn if the students ever learn anything? No, that has no importance. None whatsoever. Then tomorrow let's all complain that all those other countries have students so much more educated than those in the USA.
All of this helps students become educated so much! Yes, they will be ready to stand around and point fingers and yell. That's how you become successful these days in the USA...
Posted by: Mark Chopper on April 20, 2006 04:50 PMAccording to the Times "I never intended insult" article, Peter Ratener called his lampoon an "egregious mistake," saying that "Though I never intended insult, I am judged for what I should have known. "Educators are held to a higher standard," said , who has taught at BCC for more than 25 years.
What "egregious mistake," getting caught?
According to the report, "Ratener said the question originally had referred to comedian Gallagher, who smashed watermelons as part of his act, and that he changed it to Condoleezza because she was a more recognizable icon and because he likes the name."
This is not about the First Amendment, and anyone who says that it is is stupid enough to buy Rateners bull$hit.
Hey Jake, this is a blog where commentary is generally the thing that keeps it interesting. If you don't like it, don't let the internet door hit you in the behind!
mmmmmm..., that would be OK.
Posted by: huckleberry on April 20, 2006 05:21 PMI'd say no, it's not about being old, it's about being aware of history.
If you had maybe spent some time in the deep South or were mildly curious about American history and went to the library a lot you'd come across this stereotype. Look up 'Jim Crow', here's a link to get you started: http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/menu.htm, see Picaninny Caricature or Coon Caricature.
If you don't know about watermelon stereotypes you will probably not understand what the fuss is all about.
Posted by: Lake Trout on April 20, 2006 05:30 PM
Welcome to Sound Politics.
Posted by: Daniel K on April 20, 2006 05:49 PMAll it requires is a passing knowledge of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and others in their line of work. It seems that the media always has a fresh racial slur being condemned, just pay attention to current events and you will learn quickly.
The 60 year old teacher should have known better.
Since schools are so sensitive and politically correct today, and with revisionist history I'm sure you can make a case that younger people and current students today could be unaware of some offensive combinations of non-offensive words that older people know.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on April 20, 2006 06:19 PMWhat has continued to baffle me is the double standards Jackson, Sharpton, and others embrace. As pointed out in many of posts, if this had been a liberal like the mayor of New Orleans there would have been an immediate application of tar and feathers along with the obligatory wailing and gnashing of teeth of how the plantation mindset still exists. Bill Cosby has been taking a lot of heat for pointing out the hyprocrisy and I have a feeling I don't think he would view this as "just a math problem".
Let's take a stab at more recent history. How do you feel about the over-reaction of the media and political establishment to Trent Lott expressing his admiration and gratitude to Strom Thurmond on the celebration of his 100th birthday? (I do not know if impressionable students were present at that party.) Surely if it was good enough for the Mississippi goose it also applies to the Bellevue gander, wouldn't you agree?
Maybe, maybe not. We should probably make more of an effort to teach kids to read. But that's not my point.
Although you didn't know what Professor Ratener was getting at with his Condoleezza + watermelon + Federal building fantasy, he almost certainly did. His explanation of what happened is simply not credible, and BCC's response is quite laughable.
The actual offense of mocking your political enemies, although immature in this case, is not such a big deal to me. What kills me is the hypocrisy of liberals about their bigotry. He gets busted, so send him to niceness camp for reprogramming and hire a Vice President of Niceness to prevent accidental not-niceness in the future. And fire any evil conservative racists for any similar offense, real or imagined.
Posted by: Lake Trout on April 20, 2006 10:01 PMYou have a lot to learn, and it appears that you have the potential. Please read history on your own, you'll fall in love with it because it opens you to the world of facts and critical thinking in contrast to the self serving liberal foolishness that seems omnipresent today. I suggest starting with “Patriots,” by A.J. Langguth, or “1776” by David McCullough. Reading history raises legitimate questions and the thirst for answers leading to more interest, research, and balanced insight.
One warning though: If you are afraid of becoming conservative, forget reading academic materials on your own; they only prove that liberalism is the deliberate ignorance of facts in favor of sentiment. The truth is not always easy to find, and I am not saying that I am the keeper of it, but it is easy for me to see completely through Peter Ratener and this issue. This petty racism is simple academic indecency.
Unfortunately you and I both inherited a school system that is so steeped in liberalism that it is unrecognizable to anyone who doesn’t have a point of reference to recognize the difference. The real purpose of education is to teach students to do those things they must do whether they like it or not. Rather than a clearing house of liberal doctrine, it is meant to be about imparting to students the discipline and intellectual skills necessary for them to think for themselves.
With his own disingenuous mea culpa, Peter Ratener proves that he has no respect for the academic atmosphere. In fact, Peter Ratener has no respect for his students, his family, or himself.
You have a great shot at the joy of never-ending and perpetually rewarding intellectual pursuit. Daniel K and his ilk are hopeless. His consciousness is completely filled with doctrinal emotionalism and prejudice to the point where he is unable to consider facts and ideas let alone recognize them for what they are. He is not aware of his own mental illness because he doesn’t have a point of reference to recognize the difference.
As a drive-by rock thrower, he does his pathetic best.
Don't expect that to change any time soon.
Thanks and good luck.
Everything in it's time. I appreciate your candor, balanced attitude and sense of "racial responsibility."
I never assumed your partisan leaning.
Thanks for your comments.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on April 21, 2006 11:38 AM
... my point is that if I grew up in that "diverse" environment, (our school was 20% white) wasn't that a disservice of the school to not educate my generation on such stereotypes. Or were they afraid that teaching us about it would just open the door up for more racism... One could argue that the younger generation's lack of awareness of this could be a sign that the stereotype is on its way to impotence.
You seem to be saying the school system was wise to not teach you about racist comments, because being armed with the knowledge might enable you to actually use racist comments. Sounds reasonable.
How do you feel about public schools teaching students the best ways of having safe sex? Might the knowledge of how to have protected sex enable childen to do it, children who would not otherwise have had the interest or knowledge?
Am I misunderstanding you?
Posted by: huckleberry on April 21, 2006 01:58 PMHe was hands down the most effective math instructor I HAVE EVER HAD. He was challenging and fair. His lectures were not boring - they were fascinating and exciting. He forced the students to work hard through high expectations. Never once did politics enter his classroom.
I for one, will take his apology and explanation on face value.
I'd hate to see such a phenomenal math educator (something we have a shortage of ...) lose his job over this. His 25 years of excellence in the classroom should stand for something.
Posted by: a college student on April 21, 2006 07:33 PMPolitics entered Peter Ratener's classroom through his own efforts. No one forced his hand, there is no excuse.
With his disingenuous mea culpa, he proved that he knew the seriousness of his actions and that he has less respect
for the academic atmosphere than his academic neutrality.
He needs to step down.
If he is as good as you say he is, he will on his own.
If not . . . not.
It's as simple as that.
I took Differential Calculus at BCC from Pete Ratener a few years ago.He was hands down the most effective math instructor I HAVE EVER HAD.
I'm confused. When I was in a position to make a statement like I took class A from Professor X a few years ago, the statement would have been made after I had grown up, graduated, gotten a job, and no longer referred to myself as a college student. Am I to understand that you are still a student? How's that workin' out for ya?
He was receiving death threats over this innocent mistake. That's why he stayed silent.
I must say, you are all ignorant for believing that it was intentional. My teacher knows the guy (I may be mistaken, but I think he was her ex), and she vouched for the guy, saying he spoke out for Civil Rights when he was younger, and occasionally marched.
If the professor wasn't white, would there be as much, if any, commotion?
No.
So isn't saying that this is a racial issue discriminatory to whites, by going with an idea that "everytime a white person mentions someone black, he's a racist"?
He meant nothing by it. When my teacher told the class the story today, everyone in the class was disgusted. . .not with the teacher, but with the students who took offense.
Ever wonder why racism is still rampant? It's not because of people like the teacher, it's because of people like the students. People are too sensitive and too eager to find faults in others. People are too quick to play the race card. All too often, the average, white male must slink in the shadows because they are the subjects of racism--the racist idea that white people are racist. If that white man says "black" instead of "African American," he's pounced on and forced to apologize. If that white man says "my wife is a good cook," the female community will be on him for forwarding the idea of "a woman's place is in the kitchen." The day we can allow the average, white male to say things without being called "disrespectful" and "a racist," is the day racism will reach its nadir in history.
Consider this: A black (oops, sorry, African American) rapper (oops, sorry, music artist who happens to be African American, not because all rappers are black, but just because it's a coincidence in this case) talks about killing "whitey" (gee, no need to explain myself for that one) in one of his songs. No problem.
A white male rapper talks about killing a black (oops, sorry, African American) person. He's going to be publicly denounced, forced to face litigation, lose record deals, and be out of a job. Why? Racism. Not on his part, but on the part of the "sensitive" community.
Give me a break. It began with Gallagher. It ended with Condoleeza Rice. Innocent mistake.
Hell, I wouldn't have caught it. It's not like the question said "a black man threw a watermelon, which he had been eating hungrily, off the side of a KFC." It mentioned a name. Period. Not a race, a name.
GET OVER IT PEOPLE.