OPINION & EDITORIAL
Racism has consequences at UW
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Letters to the Editor:
- SSFC stipend appropriate (December 11, 2007)
- Poor plowing cuts off handicapped access (December 10, 2007)
- Cars that actually help the environment (December 10, 2007)
- Organic food: Deliciously safe (December 10, 2007)
- Diversity deserves attention at UW (December 7, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Kaplan's remarks need clarification (March 5, 2007)
- Misunderstood? (February 27, 2007)
- Kaplan's remarks not racist (February 26, 2007)
- Due process overdue (March 7, 2007)
- Readers mount verbal assault (March 2, 2007)
by Letters to the Editor
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
It isn't about race, it's about ignorance?
I don't think so. Professor Leonard Kaplan's alleged comments about Hmong have everything to do with race. The pat on the wrist from Ken Davis, Dean of UW Law School, also, has absolutely everything to do with race. In fact, this whole incident thus far has been yet another poignant example of how racism is addressed (or rather not addressed) in our society: professor allegedly makes racist statements, student response is doubted by community (really, what do they know?), college speech codes protect hateful statements (which are "pertinent to the class", of course).
In light of the reality that most of the world suffers because of our society's unwillingness to acknowledge and address white supremist racism, our community therefore allows and makes every attempt to justify the highly racist statements spouted by tenured professors such as Kaplan. This is precisely why we attribute what student reaction there was to "heightened edginess" of the Hmong community, as if student reaction to racist speech came from temporary and unfounded hysteria. Or better yet, this whole thing is a "misunderstanding". Highly doubtful that law students have the ability to recognize hateful speech. What is this? Racism as enigma? Since when has it become confusing to identify racism?
Oh yeah, since we've stopped talking about it. The attempt to discredit and write off student concerns and allegations is disheartening. Rather than seize this opportunity to foster college-wide discussions, the administration tries to hush and muffle the tender, rearing head of RACISM. The days of fraternities holding 'slave auctions' in Madison are over, right? That outrageously racist party at Clemson University earlier this month-surely an exceptional occurrence. There is no racism here. UW (and surrounding Madison) may be 85 percent white, but we're nice whites, you know, the non-racist kind.
UW's academic free speech code may very well protect racist lectures, but this does not protect the speakers of those lectures from the student and community imposed consequences (lest we act). Our "marketplace of ideas" should not be hospitable for hate speech. There were nearly 9,000 reported victims of hate crimes in America in 2005, with undoubtedly thousands more incidents unreported. We are in the midst of a highly racist war, our empire committing millions of hate crimes in the world. Racism is engrained, normalized, and omniscient in Madison, in America. White privilege is a blinding veil wrapped around our heads. It is about time that here, in our own community, we stand in solidarity with our students, Hmong or otherwise, and hold teachers accountable for perpetuating racism.
Monica Goncze Campus Antiwar Network member
Anonymous (February 27, 2007 @ 1:30am):
Monica ... go pick a real fight, one where you can actually make a difference. You are shooting into the breeze, pissing into the wind. It makes me sad that you waste your time fighting something so unimportant in the grand scheme of life. MOVE TO NEW ORLEANS OR SUDAN OR DO SOMETHING AHHHHH
Anonymous (February 27, 2007 @ 1:49am):
Do you honestly think that 99.9995% of the UW-Madison UNDERGRAD student body knows what you mean by, "The days of fraternities holding 'slave auctions' in Madison are over, right?"
and it was one auction, not multiple. for the record.
Anonymous (February 27, 2007 @ 1:50am):
"professor allegedly makes racist statements, student response is doubted by community (really, what do they know?), college speech codes protect hateful statements (which are "pertinent to the class", of course)."
Nam Dao, a student who was actually there when Kaplan made his statements, defended Kaplan and put his remarks in context. Where were you, Monica, and who are you to restrict the marketplace of ideas?
There's plenty of racism on campus -- it is an institutional problem. What does your rant do to address the problem or advance the discussion?
All I see is you joining President Bush and Cheney and Rove and their crowd in trying to dismantle the first amendment and academic freedom on college campuses.
Good luck with that.
Anonymous (February 27, 2007 @ 4:08am):
This letter does not deserve to be printed, unless the point was to show the bias of the author, who clearly cannot see both sides to this important issue.
Anonymous (February 27, 2007 @ 6:38am):
Once profit is removed from racism (e.g. there is no longer a benefit to the race baiters in the form of cash and power), racism will end and people will be equal.
If you want to see real racism, take a trip to Europe or Asia (I have not been to South America or Africa, so I cannot comment on them).
Think about it, if there was not the perception of racism (calling whites supremicists is by no means racist), Monica here would have had nothing hateful to write.
Monica, I have lots of reasons to hate, but ya know, I deal with it, and go out of my way to prove the ignorant wrong. The great thing is, the ignorant make it easy to do so.
Anonymous (February 27, 2007 @ 7:27am):
Newsflash: Everyone is a racist. That is all.
Anonymous (February 27, 2007 @ 8:04am):
The problem with the campus antiwar movement is they co-op all liberal causes. This is for better or worse. I agree this is a problem but the involvement of what has shown itself to be a far left equally hate filled "antiwar" organization hurts the issue.
Anonymous (February 27, 2007 @ 8:15am):
Conflating Kaplan's comments with white supremacist racism demonstrates your utter lack of understanding of the issues. Although Kaplan's comments do not in any way constitute hate speech, your rant seems to be that hate speech laws should have been upheld in the US. Academic freedom requires protection of statements that may offend some individuals. In Kaplan's case a group was offended based on a misinterpretation of statements. The university discourse should not be subject to a veto by students who feel their rights of students have been violated any time a professor describes cultural differences.
Anonymous (February 27, 2007 @ 8:40am):
Monica Goncze of the Campus Anti-War Network no doubt opposed Coalition forces ousting the GENOCIDAL murderer of Iraqi Kurds-- and today cheerleads for retreat from GENOCIDAL Islamo-fascists in the newly democratic Iraqi Republic-- actually has the temerity to climb up on her hind legs and howl about racism?
Physician, heal thyself!
Anonymous (February 27, 2007 @ 9:21am):
Maybe you should take a look at Darfur, where GENOCIDAL Arabs are killing ang raping the blacks? You know, something really serious?
Maybe it's a problem that war could solve?
Anonymous (February 27, 2007 @ 9:53am):
Were you in the class Monica?
Anonymous (February 27, 2007 @ 10:03am):
Monica, go back to kindergarten and start over.
Anonymous (February 27, 2007 @ 10:41am):
Monica,
Your basing your whole article on "alleged" comments made by Kaplan--have you talked to anybody that was in the class? Isn't basic fact-finding a fundamental skill of journalist. To lump Kaplan, who is Jewish, into the white supremist racist bunch is really ignorant. By the way your writing is terrible-this is one of the most poorly written articles ever, and its a "slap on the wrist" not pat.
Anonymous (February 27, 2007 @ 11:13am):
Monica = PWNED
Add in Knox, Kumar, the rest of the gang. You guys are so full of shit. Seriously, move to Sudan and create real change instead of the superficial bullshit you work on in this bubble of a campus we call Madison.
Anonymous (February 27, 2007 @ 11:30am):
Yes there is a lot of racism in America, and in Wisconsin in particular. But leaving it up to hysterical college kids in Madison, of all places, to set the standard for what constitutes invidious discrimination is just not going to work, as evidenced by your editorial.
Perhaps if you had reported what the prof said, in context, instead of tossing around accusations of white supremacy and institutional indiference, you wouldn't have wasted this valuable opportunity to reach the student body.
Tone down the empty rhetoric and focus on a rational examination of what happened.
Anonymous (February 27, 2007 @ 11:41am):
I suggest you either:
a) read the story ran by the Badger Herald concerning the comments: http://badgerherald.com/news/2007/02/26/alleged_remarks_rais.php
b) read Gerald Cox's opinion column on it. Bear in mind that Dao is Vietnamese, not Hmong: http://badgerherald.com/oped/2007/02/26/kaplans_remarks_not_.php
c) Scroll down to read Dao's statement in the comments on Cox's column: http://badgerherald.com/oped/2007/02/26/kaplans_remarks_not_.php
Once you have done some combination of the above reading, you must realize that Prof. Kaplan spoke well within the frame of academic discussion, and did not reflect upon his perpetuating the view or espousing it.
It's not a matter of ingorance. It's a matter of teaching a classroom full of law students.
An apology, however, is not out of question. Though I believe he has already done so.
Anonymous (February 27, 2007 @ 11:56am):
Racism is omniscient? That's, like, poetry.
Anonymous (February 27, 2007 @ 12:30pm):
I got two words to say: White Power! The Anglo-Saxon will dominate the planet and will enslave all other race because they are not white...white...WHITE!!! White POWER!
Anonymous (February 27, 2007 @ 12:57pm):
The focus of your letter, and most of the discussion on this issue, is woefully misplaced. Unlike undergraduate lectures, where information is presented in a lecture format with slides and speeches, the law school uses a socratic method of teaching, in which students are forced to answer a series of questions, and difficult issues are explored by raising different views and perspectives. In this style of teaching, Professor Kaplan made these comments, as I understand it, to provoke replies and rebuttals from his students. Most people would agree that in the effort to purge racism from our society, it is far more effectively to actively confront and address racist notions rather than sweep them under the rug and pretend that they don't exist. There is probably a worthwhile debate to be had on whether or not Kaplan's comments were the most effective method of leading students to explore and disprove racial stereotypes that unfortunately are all too pervasive. However, it seems as though people would rather pick their sides on the opposite ends of this issue rather than address the core of what actually took place.
Anonymous (February 27, 2007 @ 1:03pm):
AMEN MONICA. White supremacy and racism on this campus is omniscient. The comments on this wall prove it. People can say so many blatantly racist and white supremest things and not be held accountable to their words because they live in a environment where that is the norm.
So many of the people on this campus claim that race doesn't matter, that issues of oppression have more to do with class. This wall is a perfect example of the barriers that people of color face: a system that is set up against to them and meant to dis-qualify their statements as invalid unless they are upheld the people in power.
Anonymous (February 27, 2007 @ 1:31pm):
"In this style of teaching, Professor Kaplan made these comments, as I understand it, to provoke replies and rebuttals from his students. "
No. Nobody is claiming this at all.
You are mixing him up with Barrett who said he was trying to be controversial.
If the replies and rebuttals don't come, then what?
Anonymous (February 27, 2007 @ 3:50pm):
"Racism is... omniscient"?
"Omniscient" means all knowing. Did you mean omnipresent (as in, pervasive)?
In any case, you've gone a long way toward answering your 1st question.
Anonymous (February 27, 2007 @ 4:37pm):
Can I said something here? What kind laws does the professor teach? What does he expect his students to learn from statement such "Hmong men are untalented...all they know is how to kill." Is this a law statement? Can this really help society in any good? He is wasting our tax money and students' tuition.
Anonymous (February 27, 2007 @ 6:00pm):
Omniscient... haha! 3:50, Way to pull the dictionary from your holster and shoot the crap out that sorry attempt at pretentious grammar. I guess we should all feel good looking down our noses at Monica today.
Anonymous (February 27, 2007 @ 6:10pm):
Read the statements in context. He was using the stereotypes to point out problems with the law. So yes, it did have to do with law.
Anonymous (February 27, 2007 @ 6:46pm):
leave the problem be, all childish games. races it is. all of you act like none of you have ever said anything racial to anyone. this world ain't perfect!!!
Anonymous (February 27, 2007 @ 6:49pm):
Funny how everyone has been racing to take Nam Dao's comments as the truth because you can pick out a line or two to make yourselves feel better about your own racist asses. Don't forget although Nam Dao didn't feel offended in one context he did say he was offended, as well as other students who were in class. So go try to cherry pick their statements.
Anonymous (February 27, 2007 @ 6:57pm):
Cherry picking statements? Hmm. I wonder who else could have refrained from cherry picking someone's in class statements.
Anonymous (February 27, 2007 @ 9:20pm):
Is kaplan still in the classroom teaching laws.? what kind of laws is he teaching?
pin down his nuts, he will tell the truth..
Anonymous (February 28, 2007 @ 12:28am):
its obvious that there were problems not just decades ago but only years about the hmong issues.....with the killing and how certain cultural events can make a controversial issue racist....the professor could of explain it in a different matter outside of class.......this is just another issue making history......for example when blacks were slaves, japanese were in lock down in camps durning WW 2, chiense worked on railroads as slaves, etc.......its a remark that could change history.....of course there will be rebuttals and all that sort......Whatever happens in the next couple months, i hope the school knows what to do in this matter. Rightfully something like this can take effect to certain extend.....the meaning of racist do exist everywhere, although I believe Professor Kaplan is jewish?.....im sure he may feel offensive if anyone would say anything bad about his religion or he would consider it a Freedom of speech.......However, not to meantion all of things are shitty the way the world works.........
Anonymous (February 28, 2007 @ 12:38am):
I guess this is why he's teaching law as oppose to practicing it...what a terrible mistake and a p.o.s. he is right now.
Anonymous (February 28, 2007 @ 9:23am):
thanks monica. i think most of the previous comments exemplify the message you were attempting to portray in your letter. people on this campus refuse to acknowledge the subtle realities of the oppression they perpetuate on a daily basis.
the previous commentors are clearly scared and defensive about the possibility that they too perpetuate racism. of course that's a scary thing! hopefully most of us don't wish to be a pivotol part of sustaining the white supremist institutions that pervade our society, especially institutions of higher education.
unfortunately, society teaches us to be racist. every white person is raised and developed in a white supremist society and is therefore racist. but it doesn't have to stop there- feeling helpless and defensive about who we are. you can unlearn these things. you can acknowledge your white privilege. you can work to end racism. you can make a difference.
but you have to stop these silly comments defending your actions and telling people that it's not the BIGGEST problem in the world so we don't need to deal with it. just take a step back and realize you have a lot to learn. we all do.
Anonymous (February 28, 2007 @ 4:03pm):
"Our community therefore allows and makes every attempt to justify the highly racist statements spouted by tenured professors such as [Prof. Leonard] Kaplan," says this editorial I'm not sure what Ms. Goncze wants our "community" to do about the non-menace of possibly-bigoted soundbites in long lectures. Perhaps a shady Internet service could be set up, allowing students to make "bias incident reports" to campus administrators. But wait -- we already have this! Thanks to the "Think, Respect" initiative at UW, students can now "name names" quickly and conveniently.
I have no idea what Kaplan's comments were intended to convey. I wasn't there, and I don't really care at any rate. I will not grant myself -- nor any student, organization, or administrator -- the authority to decide what is and isn't "hate speech." Nor, for that matter, will I accept the argument that UW would be a better university if controversial, possibly-offensive statements were met with swift reprimand. No idea or perspective, no matter how apparently vulgar, should be kept from us.
The type of "thinking and respecting" advocated by UW administrators has nothing in common with the intellectual rigor and challenge of good liberal education. Gone are the days of "sifting and winnowing." We've been consigned to plastic shovels and sand pails, when we should be going on archaeological digs. Those who rail on about Kaplan hasten the day when their own freedom of speech will be called into question.
Though Ms. Goncze acknowledges that Kaplan's comments are perhaps protected by the UW, she advises "community imposed consequences." I'm not quite sure what she means here, but her ambiguous language sounds eerily threatening. Writing for the Campus Antiwar Network, she goes on to accuse the U.S. of "committing millions of hate crimes in the world" (a loaded statistic, of course). Is Kaplan now a scapegoat for American's foreign policy mistakes as well? Should Kaplan awaken one night to find a giant peace sign burning on his lawn, I guess we'll know what organization to blame.
Anonymous (February 28, 2007 @ 4:14pm):
"every white person is raised and developed in a white supremist society and is therefore racist"
Are you out of your mind? That statement alone is enough to discredit anything else you've written.
Anonymous (March 1, 2007 @ 4:44am):
Gone are the days of "sifting and winnowing."
Nope they're still here.
You just don't like it when a law professor gets the "sift and winnow" treatment. This is free speech at its best: offending speech, and then counter speech.
Tenure isn't protection from sifting and winnowing, is it? Sad if the professors somehow got that idea and thought there were no checks on their speech. It's not censorship, it's questioning "truths". That's still ok.
Anonymous (March 1, 2007 @ 3:33pm):
To the previous poster, in defense of my original statements:
"Sifting and winnowing" does not involve slandering people, crying bloody murder about their comments, and insinuating that their opinions should never see the light of day. Noone has yet elaborated on exactly WHAT they would like to see done about Mr. Kaplan.
And at any rate, the proper forum for the "counter speech" you talk about was at office hours with Prof. Kaplan. I'm sure he would have been happy to privately explain the context of his lecture to offended students, and reassure them he was not expressing his own prejudices. This is not his legal duty, but it would have been a pleasant, responsible gesture. His students would have had a golden opportunity to learn about the differing contexts of academic statements. Furthermore, Kaplan himself would have thanked his students for showing him that the context of his lectures is not always clear. Most professors are happy to receive criticism, even at its harshest.
Instead, those offended by Kaplan circulated a cowardly email calling attention to the statements, with the obvious intent of starting a campus crisis. Their goal was NOT to get discussion started, or remedy an offense, but to essentially ruin somebody's career and reputation on campus. There are people at UW who enjoy doing that to faculty. It makes them feel powerful. Mr. Kaplan would be absolutely in his right to seek legal action against those who have danced around this university calling him a racist. The political immaturity of UW students apparently extends to the Law School as well.
Anybody who continues to complain about this non-crisis should grow up. Trying to mitigate the negative consequences of the First Amendment is a pointless task. There simply is a side of this debate opposed to academic freedom, and for them to pretend to take a moral high ground -- given their careless, flippant attitude -- is truly pathetic.
Eric
Anonymous (March 1, 2007 @ 5:34pm):
To the poster named Eric:
The students first went to the Dean and then to the professor. That conversation did not help. Hence a meeting was called. As for the "cowardly email", it was sent to good friends - unfortunately the internet forwarding machine took over from there. There was no plan or intent to start a wildfire and I doubt there would be one if that email had not been extensively quoted in news reports.
Anonymous (March 1, 2007 @ 11:34pm):
To the previous poster:
A very good observation and refutation of my last post. I failed to note that the students had sought out the Dean's support initially, and as someone who values thoughtful rhetoric I'm embarrassed about this. Thank you for discrediting my misplaced point as well and as bluntly as you did.
Yet I still believe that although the Dean and Prof. Kaplan were confronted first, it was inappropriate to go further than that even given the circumstances of those confrontations. Kaplan had not violated students' academic rights or singled anybody out personally. He had simply dramatized existing racial sentiments in an academic context. While I agree he should have been more initially understanding of the offense this caused, reasonable people should not treat his apathy as occasion for creating a large-scale controversy. He has the legal right (if not exactly the moral right) to not care who he offends.
The rapid-fire forwarding of the email indicates that at some point, someone did decide to turn this into a major issue, which it simply was not. You're right to call that unfortunate, and it reflects my misgivings about the Madison left and its disdain for academic freedom. But I do apologize for misstating the order of events.
And I am still waiting for a robust explanation of how those who praise the students who 'reported' Kaplan wish the situation had been addressed. So far as I can tell, there is no potential "remedy" which would not violate Prof. Kaplan's First Amendment rights and attack academic freedom at UW. We pay a price when we punish speech, no matter how immediately comforting it feels to do so.
The solution is recognizing that there is no solution, and that there doesn't need to be. It is not a condition of the First Amendment that we hold peoples' hands through the difficult consequences of having freedom of speech. If Kaplan's students were offended, they were right to talk to him about their misgivings. But his lack of reassurance should not, at any rate, immediately render his comments unprotected and punishable.
Eric
Anonymous (March 2, 2007 @ 1:57am):
"There was no plan or intent to start a wildfire and I doubt there would be one if that email had not been extensively quoted in news reports."
So should we blame the media for Monica's wildly erratic editorial?
Anonymous (March 2, 2007 @ 3:13am):
Thank you Monica! What you said needed to be stated even though those who silently or not so silently gain from this system have a hard time admitting it. As was said above, this wall simply stands as evidence of pervasive white supremacy.
To all of you who said "go to Sudan" what are you doing about oppression in this country or internationally? Are you lobbying congress to make changes? Are you doing any activism whatsoever or are your lives filled with empty rhetoric? It looks to me like Monica is actually working to affect change. Once you do the same, than you have claim to those comments.
Anonymous (March 3, 2007 @ 11:29am):
If you don't like racism, find someone of a different race, and marry them, and have babies, and help us advance to the point where we just have some nicely browned people the world over. Then we can all find different reasons to hate each other. Religion, fashion, etc.
Bring on the caramel colored earthlings of the future.
Anonymous (March 3, 2007 @ 11:31am):
You restrict comments until they've been reviewed? That's so fascist.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
