Washington State University has reprimanded ethnic studies professor John Streamas for screaming at the College Republicans when they staged a peaceful campus protest on immigration. Streamas was so offended by the chain link fence erected by the CRs to symbolize the need for tighter U.S. border control that he called at least one of them a "white shit bag." He later attempted to excuse his actions by blaming the protest's incendiary imagery: "It made me angry," he told the Daily Evergreen. "The fence is no different than a Confederate flag or a swastika." WSU found Streamas to be "immature, intellectually unsophisticated and thoughtless," but did not honor the CRs' demand that he be fired. "One utterance of a faculty member in the heat of discussion is not the kind of thing for which you terminate someone," said WSU president V. Lane Rawlins.

That's true. But it's also worth noting that, as Margaret Soltan observes, there are other issues with Streamas. His syllabi are, as she says, "meandering messes." They are also quite clearly the documents of someone who is less intent on teaching students than on indoctrinating them. On one, he reflects on what is involved in creating a stable "revolutionary politics," offering the following comments on racism:

At last year's ASA session on the current state of Ethnic Studies, Jose Aranda charged that ES departments have failed to anticipate, much less counter, the Right's strategy of constructing role models in "heroes" of color such as Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Alberto Gonzales, Elaine Chao, etc. These "heroes" have bootstrapped their way to power and prestige, giving an almost literal appearance of a much larger showcase of options available to "former" victims of racism. The Right has therefore turned the tables on anti-racist discourse and practice. They have expanded the scale of the discourse of Race but have also contracted the scale of the discourse of Racism. To the Right, Race looks expansive and inclusive, while Racism looks shrunken to the size of a few impotent whiners chanting slogans from the 1960s. The irony is that, unlike Einstein, whose sense of scale still depends on the largest possible backdrop (ie, the speed of light) as an absolute frame of reference, the Right imposes particles of absolutes, each dedicated to particular aspects of existence (eg, gay marriage). It is as if the Right has constructed a descending spiral staircase of mirrors, each new mirror smaller than the mirror above it, and each reflecting therefore only a small--and diminishing--portion of the mirror above. At the bottom is the smallest possible mirror, reflecting the narrowest possible worldview.

Say what you will about academic freedom. I don't think there's much doubt that this guy crossed the line a long time ago. Even his own department chair thinks so -- last year, she recommended that his contract be terminated:

Streamas said the department is trying to fire him for confronting students with controversial issues. Some students will always feel uneasy about certain issues touched on in CES courses, he said.

"Her main complaint is that I'm a bad teacher and that I'm a bad role model," he said.

Niemann's decision is based on student evaluations that stated students felt uncomfortable with ideas expressed during his classes, Streamas said. The course is supposed to challenge students to understand racial and cultural conflicts.

Streamas has made a name for himself on campus as a strong critic of the WSU administration. In 2004, for example, at an open campus meeting on diversity, Streamas issued a challenge and a threat: "My challenge to the star chamber of elitist administrators is this: give up your presumption to dictate race policy, and turn it over to us knowledgeable and committed students and faculty of color who truly practice the diversity that you only preach. ... If you persist in your current practice, we will just have to win the race war you started against us." Also in 2004, Streamas participated in a panel discussion during which he "shouted at the audience as he made observations about violence connected with racism and then said the U.S. Constitution was a racist, sexist document that ought to be burned." He also complained that "Institutional racism makes me angry ... I've been told by a dean that I do not have a right to my anger."

One wonders whether Streamas will get the message this time around, or whether he will chalk up the reprimand he has received as another instance of institutional racism, of deans telling him he does not have a right to his anger.

Many years ago, Modern Age published an article by (as I recall) Paul Gottfried which offered a "sociological" (or perhaps social-psychological) hypothesis for the aetiology of the disorder on certain campuses in the period running from 1964-1972: that among the progenitors of this disorder, the assumption of the perspective and role of a self-supporting citizen had been retarded by affluence, elongated schooling, and so forth. "They were children; they were behaving in ways that were normal for children," but had the intellect and schooling to construct specious justifications for their conduct.

Prof. Streamas is an atypical but recognizable type in academe. Now, imagine he had followed a business course for two to four years and earned his living in the accounting department of a local hospital. Do you think he would have ended up with the sensibilities he has?

I don't think "one wonders" at all whether or not he'll get the message.

Can you say, "more institutional racism"?

"He later attempted to excuse his actions by blaming the protest's incendiary imagery: 'It made me angry,' he told the Daily Evergreen."

Toddlerhood is when we usually learn to control ourselves rather than act out all of our feelings in a socially unacceptable way. Nobody can tell a person he doesn't have a right to be angry. But people get angry all the time without saying ugly, threatening things. I have to think that most workplaces that are not academia expect some level of self-control from personnel and that they take responsibility for their actions. Try yelling racist insults in a non-academic workplace and give the excuse that you were "made" angry, (in other words have no control of yourself,) and see what happens.

His syllabi are, as she says, "meandering messes." They are also quite clearly the documents of someone who is less intent on teaching students than on indoctrinating them.
The syllabi and content of his classes should be the main issue. Professors should be allowed all the childish public outburst they can muster------as long as they offer something worthwhile in there classes. I don't condone any of the behavior---but let us get our priorities straight. I am a Brooklyn College student who has been through some horrible professors; those who indoctrinate, those with terrible syllabi and those who do not plan classes at all and say whatever comes into their heads for hours every class while staring at the floor-------and I couldn't care less what any of these professors are shouting at protests. It seems most blog/media coverage goes to those actions committed out of class; books, panel discussions, and outbursts at protests. What about inside the classroom? Is that not most important? If a professor exhibits effort and deep-thought I'll even settle for extreme in-class bias/indoctrination. But what about when a professor is just plain bad/worthless and not putting in the effort? Let's open up that can of worms.

Theodore,

I think it's sad that you're willing to settle for so little. Imagine what your college experience would be like if your profs were all neither incompetent nor biased indoctrinators. Really, don't you think that would be a much fairer exchange for your tuition dollars?

well...the tuition isn't much here. Maybe I should have studied harder in highschool? And you're right, it is sad. If it wasn't for that voice in the back of my head, whispering 'must have college degree', I would have dropped out long ago.

Theodore: You're absolutely right. What matters most is what goes on inside the classroom. That's why I took a look at the syllabi. You have every right to the best professors. Check out Rate My Professors, talk to people... even go to the library and look at books and journal articles of professors. Google these guys. It's very much worth the effort. Don't drop out.

I don't know why grown folks shouldn't be expected to act like grown folks, even if they are college professors. Doesn't it demean the rank and file of college professors to single them out and say that it's expecting too much of them to say that they should act in the civilized way that the rest of use are expected to? And what purpose could possibly be served by tolerating that crap? It doesn't serve academic freedom, to shout racial insults outside the classroom. (If it does, maybe the whole concept of academic freedom needs to be revisited.) It could give the less-mature among the student body a very wrong idea about how they can expect to act and get along in the world. Not everybody who would like to throw a tantrum can be a college professor.

I'm curious -- what would the penalty have been for calling a group of African-American students "black shit bags" or a group of Hispanic students "Mexican shit bags? What a bout calling a group of Muslim students "jihadi shit bags"? Would the punishment have been a mere reprimand? Do pigs fly?

It seems to me that Prof. Streamas is already an angry man, and any contrary positions to his own would be enough to trigger an explosion.