As promised, here is part two of the serial blog I began Friday about racism at Iowa State's school of journalism. Part three--there is much to say about this topic!--will follow shortly.

I wrote Friday about how a black woman journalism professor at Iowa State kicked a white male grad student out of her class for questioning the "anti-white" bias of her pedagogy. The larger context for that particular fiasco is the thick racial tension permeating the entire department. That tension comes from generational disagreements within the department about its recent hot pursuit of diversity. Before the exodus of this year, there were 22 faculty members in the journalism school, four of whom black. Of those four, three were untenured; there were six junior faculty overall. Three of the six assistant professors have now resigned because some senior faculty members have made "racially insensitive" remarks about the junior faculty. Two of these individuals are black; a third black junior faculty member is also considering leaving. Subscribers to the Chronicle of Higher Education can read a whitewashed version of the case here, and anybody who likes can read a more detailed, balanced version of the story in the Des Moines Register.

So what did senior faculty say that was so awful? They said minority faculty were receiving special treatment that a white professor would not get. Specifically, they said it wasn't fair that minority junior faculty get paid more and get more perks (research funds, graduate student assistants, etc.) than white senior faculty (the three junior faculty members who are leaving were making $48,550, $55,000, and $59,500 respectively--a wide spread for same-rank faculty, and very high for junior faculty at a midwestern state school where the cost of living is comparatively low; alas, the salaries of senior journalism professors are not available for comparison, but I will say that I know plenty of tenured professors of English who make considerably less than these untenured people do). The senior faculty in question suggested that such preferential treatment was discriminatory. For this, they have been labelled "hostile," "racist," and "uncivil." In the words of the provost, "Senior faculty made statements to the chair and to others which I and other people could construe as having negative racial overtones." That's what he said to the Chronicle. He told the Des Moines Register that "some people would construe [the comments] as being racist."

And what is being done? The journalism school's chairman and associate chair have been removed from their posts and new leadership is being sought. Again, in the words of the provost, the departures of three--and possibly a fourth--junior faculty "required some strong and immediate action to make clear that a culture that apparently did not welcome and support" minorities "would not be tolerated."

Interesting language. I parse:

Crucial point #1: The provost does not say that senior faculty members said racist things about junior faculty. He says they said things that people could construe as "having negative racial overtones," which he then equates with "being racist." Notice that he is concerned not with the substance of the remarks that were made--which are themselves substantial criticisms that are worth airing--but with what people might make of the remarks. The provost does not differentiate between the actual content of a remark and the reaction other people have to that remark. In this logic, a reasonable, well-intentioned individual with legitimate questions or criticisms voices them at his own risk. Such an individual is entirely at the mercy of the raw nerves, overinflated egos, grinding axes, callow careerism, and chipped shoulders of everybody else.

Crucial point #2: This logic only works one way. When white faculty suggest that they are being unfairly treated in comparison to black faculty, they are called racists and told to knock it off; when black faculty suggest that the complaints of the white faculty create a hostile environment, they make the news, they get job offers, and their home university bends over backwards to keep them. In this logic, black faculty can play the race card to great advantage; in effect, they can use it to advance their careers. By contrast, white faculty who don't like the way race is getting confused with professional accomplishment are expected to just shut the hell up.

Crucial point #3: The provost removed the chairman from his post not because of any wrongdoing (even the outraged junior faculty are careful to exonerate the chair), but because a symbolic gesture of that sort had to be made. The chairman is being punished not for any wrongdoing of his own, and not even for any wrongdoing on the part of his faculty, but because the appearance of punishment must be created in order to respond to the appearance of racism. Baudrillard would be so proud.

What's most disturbing here is not the free-floating accusations of racism, though. What's most disturbing is how those accusations distort and even obscure real, legitimate questions about what diversity is, how diversity is best achieved, and about what the pursuit of diversity means for everything from departmental harmony to definitions of scholarly excellence.

I'll develop this idea more soon--stay tuned for part three of the series.....