Occasionally, the racial victimology and extortion complex provides some entertaining and pleasant justice. The accusation that Columbia University President Lee Bollinger is insufficiently committed to diversity, and, by implication, is racist, is one of those moments.
The departure of two black administrators from Columbia has provoked the racism insinuations from two black Columbia professors. Delightfully, the New York Times saw fit to amplify their charges in a long, vacuous story on the front page of its New York section. Frederick Harris, the director of Columbia’s Institute for Research in African-American Studies, opined:
the departures “have shaken my confidence — as well as the confidence of many others at Columbia — in the ability of Columbia to maintain diverse leadership at the top.”
June Cross, an associate professor at the university’s Graduate School of Journalism, told the Times:
“I’m not saying race is the issue, but it is the subtext.”
Ungrounded innuendo doesn’t get any more devious than that. What does it mean for race to be a “subtext” but not an “issue”? This gem of obscurantism comes from a journalism professor, someone supposedly able to teach students how to write clearly.
Neither of the two departed administrators, Michele Moody-Adams and Claude Steele, are themselves charging racism—at least yet. Of course, Steele is exquisitely careful to preserve the legitimacy of all such racial accusations as a general matter:
the questions about racial implications, he said, were a “rational reaction.”
Really? “Rational” to cry racism without the slightest evidence of racial animus? And yet even Steele denies that in this case, his “identity” had anything to do with his departure. Continue reading →