Naomi Schaefer Riley defends herself in the WSJ:
Scores of critics on the site complained that I had not read the dissertations in full before daring to write about them—an absurd standard for a 500-word blog post. A number of the dissertations aren’t even available. Which didn’t seem to stop the Chronicle reporter, though. And 6,500 academics signed a petition online demanding that I be fired.
At first, the Chronicle stood its ground, suggesting that my post was an “invitation to debate.” But that stance lasted for little more than a weekend. In a note that reads like a confession at a re-education camp, the Chronicle’s editor, Liz McMillen announced her decision on Monday to fire me: “We’ve heard you,” she tells my critics. “And we have taken to heart what you said. We now agree that Ms. Riley’s blog posting did not meet The Chronicle’s basic editorial standards for reporting and fairness in opinion articles.”
When I asked Ms. McMillen whether the poem by fellow blogger Ms. Barreca, for instance, lived up to such standards, she said they were “reviewing” the other content on the site. So far, however, that blogger has not been fired. Other ad hominem attacks against me seem to have passed editorial muster as well.
In a sane world, banks would put a high premium on a loan to get a degree in anything “studies.”
For those who haven’t been following this, Nick Gillespie has the whole story.
[Update a few minutes later]
More from Ron Radosh.
It seems to me this is the free market at work. Riley worked for a publication that catered to people working in higher education. (Your first hint of that? The title of the magazine is “Chronicle of Higher Education.”) She used that publication to attack a significant portion of its customers, and did so in the laziest way possible. Her employer, deciding that attacking paying customers was bad for business, let her go. Seems to me to be libertarianism in action.
No one said they didn’t have the right to fire her. We’re just pointing out how craven it was to do so, and how worthless the publication is to anyone who actually values academic integrity.
It’s not craven at all. It’s simply good business sense.
It’s not possible to do something that is both good for business and craven? I’m sure it is. But I actually don’t agree that it’s good business sense. They may lose subscribers over the firing. And if they don’t, they should just rename it “Chronicle of Higher Leftist Education,” for truth in advertising, so everyone will know what they’re getting.
Free market or just the latest example of people from the left silenceing those they disagree with? So much for open minded dialog between people who have diverse perspectives.
She used that publication to attack a significant portion of its customers
You mean significantly VOCAL right? It’s interesting to note the lack of substance in the complaints (and no, I don’t have any problem with poetry per se). Kind of parallels her overall argument.
and did so in the laziest way possible
Lazy because she used the publication’s blog, instead of the print version? Or lazy because she didn’t actually read the dissertations? There certainly isn’t anything “lazy” about the points she made. What’s lazy is calling her lazy in a completely substanceless way. Chris.
Her employer, deciding that attacking paying customers was bad for business, let her go.
Actually they let her go as a result of the complaints. Two days after she posted it. Do you think they read it when she posted it?
Oh, snap!
FWIW, caving to a vocal minority is a typical rookie mistake, the mark of someone desperate for business. I their case, it might make sense, but we cannot assume that from the outside, especially given how infamous this just made the Chronicle, never mind the damage the splat-studies crowd just did to their own image. Tisk, tisk…
Lazy in that she didn’t read the dissertations, and apparently didn’t even read the titles right. I mean, how does she know that Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor was arguing for a government conspiracy? Doesn’t say that in the title.
If your paying customers are complaining because an employee did something offensive and stupid, one usually at least disciplines the employee.
Chris, this is a quote attributed to Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor:
“The subprime lending crisis, if it did nothing else, highlighted the profitability of racism in the housing market.”
And you’re going to use that to assign laziness to Riley? That vibration you sense is an indication you should check your lug nuts.
And as far as offensive and stupid is concerned, considering her employer had to have seen the post when it was made, but didn’t react until the squealing reached jet-aircraft decibels, I think it’s fair to question where the stupid should be assigned.
The statement “The subprime lending crisis, if it did nothing else, highlighted the profitability of racism in the housing market.” is a conclusion. Without seeing the evidence to support it, you can’t argue that it’s incorrect.
Except with the misuse and frequency that the term racism is used these days, one could assume it is just more BS.
I read the doggerel the UConn “Feminist theory” professor wrote. Mind you she’s an English professor too and it was 8th grade snark. The last I looked it was still up there. If this sloppy blog is supposed to represent higher education and leaves a cheap, personal piling on up on the site, doesn’t that say something poor about supposed educators? BTW the crap poem is still up.
“Without seeing the evidence to support it, you can’t argue that it’s incorrect.”
Where have you been? Under a rock? How many stories have been written about banks getting raked over the coals for not lending in minority neighborhoods and the veiled threats from regulators if they didn’t, forcing them to do so. Look at where many of the foreclosures and walk-aways are. Look at the lost value. Banks are failing every week. There is so much evidence you could choke on it.
I remember on this very blog the outrage and butt-hurt when one NASA engineer said “space tethers break.”
How is this different? She didn’t read the dissertation! She made a categorical statement based on a one-sentence summary. At least the NASA engineer had actually seen a space tether break. Riley merely heard about it at a cocktail party.
Riley merely heard about it at a cocktail party.
Do you have evidence for this assertion? And even if the assertion is true, is her original accusation false?
It would be…interesting to read some of the letters of complaint from the vast number of “Studies” people who wrote in. We could correct their grammar, and spelling, and logical fallacies, and take whats left…..oh…right. What’s left would probably fit on a post-it note.