A few days ago the Wall Street Journal published a letter by Philip W. Semas, president and editor in chief of the Chronicle of Higher Education, that attempted — with no success — to defend the dismissal of Naomi Schaefer Riley, claiming her criticism of black studies in her 500 word blog post didn’t meet the Chronicle’s journalistic standards.
Since I have discussed the Chronicle’s disappointing behavior here, here, and here, I will not summarize the controversy, nor do I have much to add to George Leef’s response to Semas’s letter. But Semas’s central — in fact, only — complaint against Ms. Riley does deserve more attention.
Here is the sum and substance of the Chronicle’s justification for firing its former blogger:
… Ms. Riley was not dropped because she criticized black studies. She was dropped because she damned an entire academic discipline based on the titles and short descriptions of three dissertations. More importantly, when she was asked to respond, the response she provided did not offer any additional support for her glib assertion.
Leave aside the question of whether Ms. Riley was in fact glib and even whether glibness is a fatal, firing flaw of blog posts (if it is my editor, if I had one, would have fired me long ago). What undermines and gives the lie to Semas’s pitiful defense is that he has not fired staff reporter Stacey Patton, whose April 12 Chronicle pieces prompted Riley’s response. Patton’s article, “Black Studies: ‘Swaggering Into the Future,'” and a sidebar, “A New Generation of Black-Studies Ph.D.’s,” was every bit as “glib” in its uncritical, unresearched, unstinted praise of the field of black studies and the five exemplars she presented as Riley was in her criticism. Patton, a history (black studies?) PhD from Rutgers and former writer and editor for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, gave no evidence in her fawning article on the field of black studies or her star-struck interviews with doctoral students she presented as representative of its scholarly maturity that she had read any more than Riley had. Both relied on what the five stars Patton selected said.
If it is a firing offense to damn an entire field based on the self-described work of five “stars” the Chronicle’s own reporter selected and featured, why does it meet the Chronicle’s journalistic standards for that reporter to praise an entire field — Swaggering Into The Future! — based on no more than obsequious interviews with those same five graduate students?
Semas complained that Riley’s criticism was based on only “three dissertations” of the five presented as shining representatives of the new scholarly seriousness black studies. Perhaps he could point to which of the two she didn’t quote that refute the evaluation she based on the three.
UPDATE
Charlotte Allen says much the same thing here.
At one point in my “career” I was fired from a job. (theater scenery engineering/construction)
Not for incompetence, “safety” violations, or the like, but for “insubordination”, with an “official” written proclamation of “inexperience”. (despite clearly demonstrable evidence to the contrary)
Naturally, I was on the phone looking for work within the hour. (everyone does that, right?)
Instead of “settling” for a “step down” I shot for the the next step UP! My potential employer hemmed and hawed a bit when I disclosed my previous workplace. In a field where “everybody knows” how the competition operates (as they SHOULD)I was immediately hired, on the phone, for more money of course, to start the NEXT DAY, the moment I revealed I was FIRED “for incompetence” from the previous “arts” establishment. (I negotiated to start the following Monday morning).
Schadenfreude prevailed when my (overtly “gay”) replacement, hand-picked by the person I offended with “insubordination”, proved to be grossly over their head, costing the theater buckets in “unexpected cost over-runs”.
Interestingly, both “offended manager”, and her newly hired(gosh, NOBODY could do this “big job” I took by themselves)assistant, from my ex-place of employment managed to keep their jobs.
(non-sequitur? They were ALL batting for the same team)
Cash, and opportunity for awareness raising aside, How much is the (apparently comfortable)spot at IHE, under the current “management”, worth to ANYONE’S professional reputation Mr. R? I suppose it all relies on the prevailing goals of fellow members of the profession. Perhaps it’s prudent to start “documenting” stuff, and review your Rolodex (yes, I’m THAT old)BEFORE your observations inevitably
“grossly offend” someone(s) that may “influence” Mr. Semas’s (now suspect, IMHO) “journalistic” standards-at an “academic” publication.
Go ahead, TELL us you haven’t even weighed all that. Maybe give Larry Summers a call.