History Adjunct Disciplined For Raising Questions About Slavery

[mahagonny]

I'd have thought that any course that addresses slavery has to look at pro-slavery arguments. Similarly, any course that looks at sexism and racism would look at justifications of sexism and racism. Hopefully, the result will be to show how weak the justifications are, as well as to illuminate the way that people rationalize their discrimination.

I suppose division of labor would be considered sexist by some, not all.

[Caracal]

I'd have thought that any course that addresses slavery has to look at pro-slavery arguments. Similarly, any course that looks at sexism and racism would look at justifications of sexism and racism. Hopefully, the result will be to show how weak the justifications are, as well as to illuminate the way that people rationalize their discrimination.


There are important questions about how to address these issues in a classroom, and it is possible to do it in an insenstive or unnecessarily provocative style. On the other hand, with many classes, it is very tempting to be provocative since so often students tend to be rather sleepy and uncurious.

The professor in this case was a grad student, I believe. New teachers may be especially vulnerable to problems in framing discussion.

The 19th century pro-slavery arguments are pretty carefully composed and would be persuasive if you accepted their premises-that black people are inherently inferior to whites. That's why I think they are important to teach. People can make reasonable sounding arguments for all kinds of terrible things.

My main problem with the framing, as it is described, is that it just isn't a historical question, or a particularly useful one. I agree with downer, however, that this could have just been the mistake of an inexperienced instructor. Sometimes I deliberately ask students a question that I think is based on faulty premises, because I want them to think about whether it is a useful question. Often it works well and can create interesting discussions, but it is the sort of thing that can easily just confuse everyone if I mess it up. I can imagine this whole thing being a particularly unfortunate version of that.

[ciao_yall]

I'd have thought that any course that addresses slavery has to look at pro-slavery arguments. Similarly, any course that looks at sexism and racism would look at justifications of sexism and racism. Hopefully, the result will be to show how weak the justifications are, as well as to illuminate the way that people rationalize their discrimination.


There are important questions about how to address these issues in a classroom, and it is possible to do it in an insenstive or unnecessarily provocative style. On the other hand, with many classes, it is very tempting to be provocative since so often students tend to be rather sleepy and uncurious.

The professor in this case was a grad student, I believe. New teachers may be especially vulnerable to problems in framing discussion.

The 19th century pro-slavery arguments are pretty carefully composed and would be persuasive if you accepted their premises-that black people are inherently inferior to whites. That's why I think they are important to teach. People can make reasonable sounding arguments for all kinds of terrible things.

My main problem with the framing, as it is described, is that it just isn't a historical question, or a particularly useful one. I agree with downer, however, that this could have just been the mistake of an inexperienced instructor. Sometimes I deliberately ask students a question that I think is based on faulty premises, because I want them to think about whether it is a useful question. Often it works well and can create interesting discussions, but it is the sort of thing that can easily just confuse everyone if I mess it up. I can imagine this whole thing being a particularly unfortunate version of that.

An interesting approach to this might be to teach about current events that use this kind of thinking, then trace it back to pro-slavery ideas, as well as prior times.

I had an interesting time teaching a group of German exchange students about early 20th century eugenics movements in America and especially in California. And all about the Japanese internment during WW2.

[mahagonny]

I can think of a reason to ask the question that hasn't been mentioned here. I don't see that it was Professor Taylor's reason, but that doesn't matter if the question presents itself anyway. A complicated thing, a major part of which boils down to an arithmetic question. Ta-Nehisi Coates has spoken to Congress in favor of reparations to slavery. Coleman Hughes spoke in rebuttal and was booed. Former candidate Elizabeth Warren has said 'it's time to have a serious discussion about reparations.' We're going to see more of her if Biden wins.
If there's going to be a tax on whiteness and an earned income credit for blackness, or some such, sometime soon, the calculation has to involve the answer to 'where would these people likely be today had it not been for their forced emigration to America, slavery and everything that has followed.'

[dismalist]

I can think of a reason to ask the question that hasn't been mentioned here. I don't see that it was Professor Taylor's reason, but that doesn't matter if the question presents itself anyway. A complicated thing, a major part of which boils down to an arithmetic question. Ta-Nehisi Coates has spoken to Congress in favor of reparations to slavery. Coleman Hughes spoke in rebuttal and was booed. Former candidate Elizabeth Warren has said 'it's time to have a serious discussion about reparations.' We're going to see more of her if Biden wins.
If there's going to be a tax on whiteness and an earned income credit for blackness, or some such, sometime soon, the calculation has to involve the answer to 'where would these people likely be today had it not been for their forced emigration to America, slavery and everything that has followed.'

Alas, no. Being forced to be better off is a no no. If one expected a whole line of offspring to be better off, force would not have been necessary, merely convincing arguments.

[mahagonny]

I can think of a reason to ask the question that hasn't been mentioned here. I don't see that it was Professor Taylor's reason, but that doesn't matter if the question presents itself anyway. A complicated thing, a major part of which boils down to an arithmetic question. Ta-Nehisi Coates has spoken to Congress in favor of reparations to slavery. Coleman Hughes spoke in rebuttal and was booed. Former candidate Elizabeth Warren has said 'it's time to have a serious discussion about reparations.' We're going to see more of her if Biden wins.
If there's going to be a tax on whiteness and an earned income credit for blackness, or some such, sometime soon, the calculation has to involve the answer to 'where would these people likely be today had it not been for their forced emigration to America, slavery and everything that has followed.'

Alas, no. Being forced to be better off is a no no. If one expected a whole line of offspring to be better off, force would not have been necessary, merely convincing arguments.

I don't understand. They weren't forced into moving and working on plantations so their ancestors could be better off. Whose thought process are you thinking of? I was just thinking in terms of restitution.

[dismalist]

the calculation has to involve the answer to 'where would these people likely be today had it not been for their forced emigration to America, slavery and everything that has followed.'

You brought it up. I assume you meant that survivors were better off here. I was just answering.

Perhaps you meant that the survivors are worse off than if they had been left at home. And then there's the extremely high probability of death during the voyage to be taken into account, a cost to be added.

[mahagonny]

Yes sorry I wasn't clear. It seems that there would be two pieces to the reparations claim which Coates and others are trying to lump together as one, emotionally, to give it more power. The crime of abducting people and taking them far away to work as slaves is as bad a crime as it ever was irrespective of blacks today being better off than today's blacks who live in Africa. But it is not the responsibility of present day whites. To believe it was would be guilt by association. To punish us for that would not be restitution. It would be a grudge reprisal.
Some of them come close to claiming that we many of us whites still believe we are superior to blacks, which would link us to the thought process that enabled slavery. Problem with that is it isn't true. Whites enslaving blacks is over, and the regret of it is common.
But they can still make a case that we present day whites still have wealth that derived  from slavery, so that should be shared. However, it has been already to some extent.
And of course comparing today's black African to today's black American, the American is better off.

[downer]

Here is an update from the College Fix.
https://www.thecollegefix.com/college-bans-faculty-from-letting-professor-guest-lecture-after-hes-accused-of-promoting-slavery-report/

It reports that he is also banned from guest lecturing for other professors, which he has done previously.

There is a petition on change.org to reinstate the professor.

I imagine this is unwelcome publicity for the university which is already struggling financially.