Q1: If a Bellevue Community College instructor included a question on a math test that began "Ron Sims drops a watermelon from the roof of the county building.....," what would be the punishment?"
A1: Unquestionably at least a long suspension; possibly dismissal.
Q2: If a Bellevue Community College instructor posed a similar question on a test substituting the federal building, and for Sims' name, that of Condoleezza Rice, what would be the punishment?
A2: One week suspension, but the professor is appealing.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at May 21, 2006 09:50 AM | Email ThisIt is doubtful that an "uproar" would have resulted if the question did not concern a watermelon. I assume that most of us took math in high school or college, however, and can remember a question that may have involved a watermelon. Not to belabor the obvious, but a watermelon is an easily-visualized object to be dropped off of a building. It is dense and would have a satisfying splat. To be clear as to my point, I could see a potential problem if the professor described Condaleeza "eating ribs and watermelon on a rooftop," and a watermelon falling off the edge, but nothing like that was stated.
At most, and I don't even agree with this, the guy is guilty not of intentionally using a racist question, but failing to consider how PC the world now is. He has taught for 25 years without a problem, and now he's some kind of pariah for what appears to have been an honest mistake (and, in fact, one in which he was probably trying to use a "diverse" name due to the PC crowd's pressure to do so in other contexts).
I suppose the only right thing to do is to hire a team of consultants to scrutinize every minority professor's test questions, and to look for "hot button" issues such as "Jimmy driving a pickup truck." That is clearly a reference to buck-toothed Southern whites driving a pickup truck, an unfortunate stereotype. Yeah, that's it.
What a joke.
Posted by: Matt on May 21, 2006 11:41 AMYes, it was obviously an honest mistake, as everyone knows that Condoleezza is such a common name. (It's a misspelling of the musical term con dolcezza, which as we all know is quite often used as a name here in the US.)
While it is true that the uproar is about the watermelon, it is true that it would not have been offensive if a non-singular name had been used ("Jesse", for example, or "Al", or "Colin"). "Barack", on the other hand, would have created the same uproar, because it is a one-person name in this country. Ditto for "Oprah". Using a one-person name like "Madonna" or "Cher" would not have been an issue because there is no racist taint to such a question. The professor was obviously trying to demean the Secretary of State, and in a racist and pointless fashion.
Posted by: timekeeper on May 21, 2006 02:42 PMI think your questions are useful and provocative. I do not think, however, it is useful to view the issue through the lens of political partisanship.
I'm a fairly left wing progressive, and I find the professor's remarks offensive and completely unacceptable. My feelings would be the same, to no greater or lesser degree, if Ron Sims or any other person were substituted for Condoleeza Rice.
There will undoubtedly be all sorts of sniping and second-guessing about the appropriate severity of punishment. The real objective to keep in mind, however, is how our reactions to such episodes might serve to not just prevent such behavior in the future, but also to educate potential "perpetrators" (for lack of a better word) on the consequences of such thoughtless statements.
As a liberal, I am very circumspect about easy, feel-good panaceas such as "sensitivity training." While efforts to raise people's awareness can be done well, I am afraid that such are the exception more than the rule. When such efforts are done poorly, I fear that they engender more backlash than progress, further fanning the flames of the fire they aim to suppress.
The professor's discipline shoud send a stern message that such speech will not be sanctioned under the color of public institutions.
Whatever that discipline may be, however, I hope that it furthers productive dialogue more than an ongoing cycle of partisan and/or racial sniping.
Oh, OK, I get it. The problem is that thinking about what would happen AFTER throwing a watermelon is an example of "future time orientation."
I guess it should be, "If Condeleezza threw a watermelon from the top of a building, what was she feeling at exactly that moment."
Posted by: BananaLand on May 21, 2006 03:18 PMFor example, early math could certainly have been more effectively taught to a young Ron Sims if the following story problem were presented: ole' Jesse were pickin' his feet, an he hat pickd' haf wy thu. How many tows hat ole jesse pickd? Among other things -- through such ebonic machinations-- it is possible (albeit remote) that Ron Sims would have learned to count or sum columns of figures. Liberals insist that Sims' comically dim-witted math is not fraud -- what else?
Since outrage only applies to watermelons juxtaposed with Condoleeza, none of us should mind the obvious fact that Ron Sims entirely escaped all story problems no matter the academic value or scurrilous content. Since as Bananaland points out, those so-called future time oriented white racist conservatives embrace highly developed intellects and well rounded characters of people like Condoleeza, it is quite understandable that liberals would apply situational ethics to brush aside liberal racism. Tit for tat.
Bartelboob is as always -- full of crap. For liberals, this partisan Condoleeza watermelon thing is a non-issue.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on May 21, 2006 07:03 PM
Uh huh, thought so.
Must be hard to type with the sheet constantly getting in your eyes...
Posted by: joemiller on May 21, 2006 10:05 PMPhony self-righteous bigots are way too easy to bait with their own racism.
By refusing to think, they can feeeel for themselves that they are more tolerant.
Clowns like this miller twerp select for observation only the superficial aspect of things
that might by comparison suggest his being superior despite his own projected intolerance.
He certainly made a bad error in judgment. A little slap on the wrist like he's getting may help him avoid a serious offense in the future.
I don't think he should be fired, or cursed forever with a "Scarlet R", if this is a one-time lapse in judgment. The warning he has received should be enough. But he should be more careful in the future to avoid even the appearance of evil.
Anytime someone ascribes specific behavioral characteristics onto an entire group identified only by their skin color, that is racist.
Yet here is Dr. Hollins in all of her glory throwing racial stereotypes left and right. Her latest initiative to institute Muslim (and only Muslim) pryaer in schools has received no MSM attention outside of Ken Schrams excellent editorial.
Interivew with Dr. Hollins can be found at: http://www.kuow.org/defaultProgram.asp?ID=9391
In effect Ratener said: In my position as a liberal e-d-u-c-a-t-o-r, I will “teach” whatever I like, because . . . I’m liberal (superior) and above it all, and I know what’s best. Besides, liberal Mathematics is good mathematics. As if mathematics and liberalism could ever be consistent in any way with each other -- the critical delusional contradiction in terms. For liberals -- mixing partisan politics with Mathematics is appropriate.
Unless he was raised in a monastery, or a geosphere on Mars (no, a liberal academic bubble doesn't count), basic common sense dictates that Ratener knew the racist implications of his act. Shock value was its only purpose. The racist nature of his little "academic joke" was only subtext for its intended partisan objective. Ratener poses the stock leftist charade of feigning scorn for racism by prominently wearing his phony liberal tolerance like a plastic badge until surrendering it comes in handy for more important partisan purposes. Liberal tolerance means approving of ideas that are established exclusively by ignoring facts.
Ratener: Me . . . racist . . . no can't be . . . I'm a liberal e-d-u-c-a-t-o-r.
Ratener is an arrogant partisan liberal punk who decided to use his position as an instructor to make a statement in support of his liberal Democrat allegiance in direct contempt of any students that have enough sense to know better. In doing so, Ratener proved his partisan zeal was blissfully careless, but people -- even otherwise smart people -- want to profess that it was only “soft racism” ignoring the overriding fact that it was rank academic misconduct of the most egregious kind.
Ratener should be fired for turning his position of academic trust into a grimy liberal podium of partisan invective forcing thoughtful intelligent (conservative) students to countenance hostile liberal bigotry in the name of phony liberal tolerance.
Watch the news. AS THE RATENERS IN OUR SOCIETY BECOME EMBOLDENED BY SMALL PUNISHMENTS, the inevitable academic stranglehold of their virulent partisanship chokes all sense and decency out of our youth. They have enough trouble thinking straight today without jerks like this teaching them to be shallow irresponsible bigoted fascists.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on May 22, 2006 11:36 AMNo, we don't need to "hire a team of consultants to scrutinize every minority professor's test questions, and to look for "hot button" issues such as "Jimmy driving a pickup truck."
We already have a built-in team of consultants as in this case where Ratener’s test questions were recognized as innappropriate and turned in by a self respecting student. We need to appreciate the fact that there are students out there that see cynical phony tolerance, bigotry, and academic fascism for what they are and won't tolerate it. The other dumb-a$$es will follow anyone. So long as you don't appreciate them, you are part of the "Ratener-Churchill" problem.
By mischaracterizing the essential point of this issue and brushing it aside, you disrespect those students that insist on being taught by professors and instructors instead of being indoctrinated or propagandized by them. It might occur to you that some brilliant young black girl resents it when a sub-intelligent white liberal racist like Ratener insults her role model -- Condoleeza Rice -- and justifiably sees it as an attack on her own future prospects. Oh yeah, I forgot, that white racist future time orientation rears its ugly head.
I salute those students who speak out because they are the ones that will save us from the liberal imbeciles like Ratener's disciples who will destroy our culture, and get us murdered.
Wise up.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on May 22, 2006 12:03 PMDespite your pseudointellectualism you display with your writing (I admire the time you must take to craft those posts), I think that you, rather than I, am missing the point here. Once you start playing this game, we have moved past the point where it is reasonable to -- as I do here -- question whether this kind of nonsense is "racism" as opposed to stupidity, a desire to mention the name Condaleeza in something less than a favorable manner (note: not a negative manner, per se), some combination thereof, or something else.
The other point that I think keeps getting missed here is that instructors/professors are under constant pressure to use "diverse" names in crafting test questions. Are professors required to run test questions through a filter, removing any kind of object that might have some kind of link, however tenuous, to some kind of ethnic or racial stereotype? What if some character with a "white guy" name is purchasing dancing lessons? Does that mean that he cannot dance, consistent with the stereotype? What if a character with a Jewish name or surname happens to be a banker or lawyer in a question? How about the situation in which something -- it could be anything, really -- negative is mentioned, such as a criminal law examination in law school? Do names particular to one ethnic group need to be filtered out in that circumstance? How about names that are uncommon and held by famous people of various ethnicities?
To be sure, some rule of reason should apply, and a teacher should not, for example, write a question in which someone named "Jamal" has stolen something and the student needs to determine how long it will take him to escape the police if he is running 10 mph and they are in a police car travelling 40 mph, and Jamal left 10 minutes before the police. But simply mentioning a watermelon? I'm quite conservative in my views, but I think your responses would be quite different if the name used was "Shaniquah" rather than "Condaleeza." Just as racist, but not as much of an idiot magnet for conservatives. Trust me, that is not the way to play the next few years.
Posted by: Matt on May 23, 2006 12:37 AMReally? I'd like to see some sometime...
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 23, 2006 06:44 AMThey are angry that deliberate liberal misconduct of all kinds are allowed to effect all sectors and aspects of American society with impunity. They are angry that the Republican (conservative) party is in power -- and yet – liberal democrats and liberal republicans rule the day on many pressing issues. Locally they are angry that conservatives will not forcefully stop liberal misconduct, fraud and corruption. This issue of academic misconduct is a clear case in point.
Conservatives are sick and tired of so-called conservatives like you excusing obvious instances of liberal partisan social misconduct that go unanswered or are lightly punished. This Ratener issue is one of those easily understood instances of misconduct that can only be excused by fools or liberals. To say that, ” we cannot be sure that the instructor's juxtaposition of Condaleeza [sic] with a watermelon is racist” is among other things . . . really silly. As an "intellect" so easily inveigled by such an obvious ruse, you are certainly not qualified to academically rate my comments.
Anyone thick headed enough to believe that Ratener inadvertently used the (real common?) name Condoleeza because “instructors/professors are under constant pressure to use "diverse" names in crafting test questions” is either pathetically naïve, or believes that those reading his comments are as dense as he is. I’m neither. You repeat pig-headedly ”Are professors required to run test questions through a filter, removing any kind of object that might have some kind of link, however tenuous, to some kind of ethnic or racial stereotype.”
As I said earlier (dim-wit), no!
However, professors are REQUIRED BY COMMON SENSE TO USE A MODICUM OF CIRCUMSPECTION AND JUDGMENT; they are E-D-U-C-A-T-O-R-S right? Obviously wrong, and this is the very core of the issue. It takes smart self-respecting students like the ones who stopped this nonsense by Ratener to turn this abusive liberal garbage in. Your case is remarkably obtuse.
Your fixation on the race angle of this incident is ludicrous, because race is only the subtext. Your points about racism are irrelevant and the side issue you belabor is comically mulish. Dancing lessons? Jamal? Shaniquah? Whatever . . . right . . . you bet Matt.
Academic misconduct that creates a genuinely hostile environment to students (liberal or conservative) should be strictly forbidden. Ratener demonstrated that he has no respect for conservatives or conservative students when he posed a story problem directed against a current conservative icon. The partisan war by liberal E-D-U-C-A-T-O-R-S against anything conservative is in full bloom (since you hadn’t noticed) and it must be stopped at all cost. Your dim-witted side issue and contempt plays right into liberals hands.
A vital concern arises when beleaguered conservative students legitimate concerns are ignored by weak minded pseudo-conservatives like you. The party looks weak because it is weakened by your superficial walk down the liberal garden path. This isn’t about racism dolt, it is about the liberal foothold of coercion and harassment of students who refuse to be propagandized by liberal communists. When you so-called conservatives turn your back on them – they feel cheated, marginalized, liberalized, and defeated by their own party, and that's why conservatives are in trouble.
I’m not willing to be cowed by liberal stupidity like yours. Thanks for you kind offwer when you say ”Trust me,” but I think I prefer to trust reason and common sense in support of conservative students rather than your disingenuous bull$hit.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on May 23, 2006 12:34 PMFunny isn't it?
It takes a real liberal to say, "I'm quite conservative in my views..."
Well . . . what are you going to believe . . . Matt . . . or your own common sense?
If you're gonna resort to stereotypes, at least get 'em right!
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 23, 2006 05:04 PMGotta love it.
Doggie bobble head and dingle balls too?
Coooool
Have a sister? JoeMiller needs a date.
I weep for the future.
A more rational approach would have been something along the lines of:
"A watermelon is launched up and away from the roof of a building. How long..."
As opposed to the niggardly paucity of thought demonstrated by the instructor.
Posted by: ewaggin on May 25, 2006 10:18 PM