This weekend, a Duke University professor was suspended after it was discovered he wrote racist comments in a New York Times article, proving that he's too ridiculous to be considered an "educator."
Jerry Hough had to speak his mind after reading a New York Times editorial titled How Racism Doomed Baltimore. The professor disagreed with the article, which he deemed was telling black people to feel sorry for themselves.
He thought there was a connection between the Baltimore riots and black people having "strange," non-traditional white names. The Professor wrote in the comments:
"Blacks get symbolic recognition in an utterly incompetent mayor who handled this so badly from beginning to end that her resignation would be demanded if she were white. The blacks get awful editorials like this that tell them to feel sorry for themselves."
Hough compared "the blacks" to other cultures who have faced discrimination, specifically Asians. He continued:
"I am a professor at Duke University. Every Asian student has a very simple old American first name that symbolizes their desire for integration. Virtually every black has a strange new name that symbolizes their lack of desire for integration."
The University later released a statement, saying that Hough's comments were "noxious, offensive, and have no place in civil discourse."
[ Related: Prince Released His New Song Baltimore! Take A Listen Here! ]
Duke Vice President for Public Affairs and Government Affairs Michael Schoenfeld had this to say:
"Duke University has a deeply-held commitment to inclusiveness grounded in respect for all, and we encourage our community to speak out when they feel that those ideals are challenged or undermined, as they were in this case."
The University has placed Hough on leave while his comments are under investigation, but meanwhile, Hough tried to explain his own comments, making things SO much worse:
"The issue is whether my comments were largely accurate. In writing me, no one has said I was wrong, just racist. The question is whether I was right or what the nuanced story is since anything in a paragraph is too simple.
"I am strongly against the obsession with 'sensitivity.' The more we have emphasized sensitivity in recent years, the worse race relations have become. I think that is not an accident. I know that the 60 years since the Montgomery bus boycott is a long time, and things must be changed. The Japanese and other Asians did not obsess with the concentration camps and the fact they were linked with blacks as "colored." They pushed ahead and achieved. Coach K did not obsess with all the Polish jokes about Polish stupidity. He pushed ahead and achieved. And by his achievement and visibility, he has played a huge role in destroying stereotypes about Poles. Many blacks have done that too, but no one says they have done as well on the average as the Asians. In my opinion, the time has come to stop talking incessantly about race relations in general terms as the President and activists have advocated, but talk about how the Asians and Poles got ahead–and to copy their approach. I don't see why that is insensitive or racist."
Hough asserts he is "strongly against the toleration of racial discrimination." But remarking that a race of people aren't hard working as others because of strange names definitely sounds like racial discrimination to us. Even the language he uses to talk about race is wrong, wrong, WRONG!
Isn't America supposed to be a melting pot???
[Image via WTVD.]
Tags: baltimore riots, controversy, duke university, jerry hough, michael schoenfeld, new york times, politik, sad sad, tacky and true, wacky