Tag Archives: blackfaced professor

From Provost Coltrane’s letter:

… the violation and its resulting impact on students in the law school and university outweighed free speech protections provided under the Constitution and our school’s academic freedom policies.

The report on this stupid and offensive Halloween costume was finished 3 weeks ago, and is now available here. Written by hired lawyers Edwin A. Harnden & Shayda Z. Le from Barran Liebman, LLP, it concludes that Prof. Shurtz committed a violation of UO policy against racial harassment.

Obviously Harnden and Le are not in charge of deciding what is a violation of UO policy, but the administration is accepting their conclusion that this is racial harassment and that its effects on the racial climate in the law school and at UO were so egregious that she is not protected by the UO policies on academic freedom and free speech, or the Constitution’s First Amendment.

The report spends a great deal of time on the effects of the incident. Its report on the administration’s response is less thorough. It does not address the possibility that the responses of the law school administration might have been in part motivated by a desire to retaliate against Shurtz for her opposition to the reappointment of Dean Moffitt, or the possibility that the responses by the law school administration, some of its faculty, and the central administration may have escalated the situation and increased the level of racial harassment felt by students, or the harm to the law school and UO.

The letter:

Dear members of the University of Oregon campus community,

A decision by Professor Nancy Shurtz to wear a Halloween costume that included black makeup on her face and hands at a party she hosted for UO law students, former students, and faculty members forced our campus to face some very difficult truths about racism, ignorance, and the state of inclusivity on our campus. Her costume mimicked the historic stereotype of blackface, and caused offense to many who witnessed it.

Today, I write with news of the disposition of the investigation led by the UO Office of Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity as a result of complaints made to the law school following the event at her home on October 31. The investigation into whether Professor Shurtz violated any law or university policy was conducted by the Barran Liebman LLP law firm in Portland under the direction and guidance of the AAEO office and UO general counsel Kevin Reed.

Although the findings of such investigations are not usually released, in this case the public nature of the act, the resulting public outcry, its impact on campus climate, and the fact that Professor Shurtz already released a letter that identifies herself and her intentions, the university has determined that it best serves the public interest to release a redacted version of the report. A copy has been posted online.

Though the report recognizes that Professor Shurtz did not demonstrate ill intent in her choice of costume, it concludes that her actions had a negative impact on the university’s learning environment and constituted harassment under the UO’s antidiscrimination policies. Furthermore, the report finds that pursuant to applicable legal precedent, the violation and its resulting impact on students in the law school and university outweighed free speech protections provided under the Constitution and our school’s academic freedom policies.

In all cases where the university is advised that an employee violated university policy, the matter is reviewed under the appropriate disciplinary process. I have read the report, and accept its conclusion. Any resulting disciplinary action remains confidential under university policy.

My hope is that both the law school community and the broader campus community can shift focus from Professor Shurtz to the much-needed process of healing and growth. We all need to work together to make this university one that is inclusive and welcoming to all. It is only through that process that we will ensure that similar incidents do not take place in the future.

Respectfully,

Scott Coltrane

Provost and Senior Vice President

That would be the University of Virginia. The WaPo has the details here. He claimed the #blacklivesmatter movement which protests illegal killings by the police was like the KKK which committed lynchings. He learned the hard way how stupid, offensive, and racist this claim is, and he asked to be taken out of class for a few weeks.

Here at UO there is still no news on the report on the Halloween incident, where a liberal law professor dressed up as a black doctor, with black make-up, in a stupid and offensive attempt to honor him and make a point about racism in the medical profession. We were told the outside law firm’s report would be finished several weeks ago.

11/13/2016: In a podcast with a Black UO philosophy student, posted on the Daily Emerald website here:

Professor Coleman’s undergraduate work was in theater. He started the Ethnic Studies program at UO. He says the administration should have thought before condemning Shurtz. He connects white emcees making money off blackface to white coaches making money off Black basketball and football players.

He’s not impressed by the argument from the Black student in the interview that one professor wearing blackface at a halloween party in her own home, with a long history of supporting diversity at UO, trying to make an anti-racist argument, creates an unsafe space for students. Coleman talks about the difficulty of meeting the Black Student Union’s demand for hiring more Black faculty without first filling the pipeline with PhD students.

He believes that whoever sent the Shurtz photo to the newspapers shouldn’t have. He and the student seem to agree that Shurtz’s anti-racist intent matters. Shurtz has told Coleman that she has hired lawyers and will sue the university so that she can resume teaching. The student wants her to have a chance to talk to the students and explain her motivations. There’s more on Ed Coleman and Black history at UO here.

11/15/2016: Profs Ed Coleman & Ofer Raban school Dean Moffitt & 23 angry professors

Retired UO Professor Ed Coleman (English Lit) is still schooling us all in what it means to be a teacher. In the RG:

As a black child growing up in a southern town in Arkansas in the early 1940s, my father took me to several minstrel shows. A friend of his played violin in the pit band and gave him tickets. The shows, a major form of entertainment in the United States, were traveling throughout the South and had stopped in our hometown of El Dorado.

As always, the performers wore blackface, with the exception of “Mr. Interlocutor” (the director on stage), who was white. All the performers were almost always black men, except for the occasional times when black women performers also wore blackface.

As a retired English professor who taught black literature and folklore (including the cultural roots of Jim Crow and minstrel show evolution and influence), I, too, was initially appalled and taken aback after reading University of Oregon President Schill’s recent letter to the University community; seeing the published photograph of esteemed Prof. Nancy Shurtz, in costume and blackface further tweaked my concern.

However, and this is a big however, after learning about Prof. Shurtz’s account of her donning the costume, I realized she was attempting to show how many black doctors have been tragically trivialized by white people. She was holding and displaying a copy of the best-selling book “Black Man In a White Coat — A Doctor’s Reflections on Race and Medicine” by Damon Tweedy, M.D. This was a party in her own home with invited guests. After reading Nancy Shurtz’s academic profile, it was clear that she is a nationally eminent scholar whose teaching and scholarship are exemplary.

What I find troubling and painful is how quickly so many of the faculty and my former colleagues are ready to tar and feather her and run her out of the university. A reputation of decades blackened and bruised with blaring headlines and heated rhetoric in an uncritical rush to judgment. Shurtz did no immediate harm and I am embarrassed at the overwhelming display of instant but uncritical outrage directed at her with their online petition and various letters screaming to have her fired.

Please! “Methinks thou protest too much.”

Shurtz had no racist intent — just the opposite. My question is: Who took the photograph and why? And why post it, hiding anonymously, on social media? Was this “guest” trying to embarrass or damage her or what? Why needlessly cause deep personal pain, anguish and humiliation?

I am taking this stance because as a black man, I, too, could be subjected to unwarranted petitions and letters.

Edwin Coleman II, PhD., is an Emeritus Professor of English at the University of Oregon.

And the Oregonian editorial board thinks we need a straightjacket:

… But was Shurtz’ action malevolent? No. Racist? Unwittingly. Harmful? Yes, but not because it was so wrong-headed or because there was evidence offered by aggrieved individuals. Instead, the incident has become harmful to the brand of the law school, 23 of whose faculty members were so cowed by the event that they asked Shurtz to immediately resign. In shame. As an idiot. Significantly, as in: not one of them.

This is dangerous, hive-minded stuff. It carries the whiff of fascistic decrees that act, over time, to crush individuals and tamp down fruitful disagreement. Meanwhile, it coddles the privileged: faculty, law students and prospective law students, whose protection both real and promised places them in a padded world immune from even perceived discomfort. …

11/14/2016: UO Law Professor Ofer Raban teaches his Dean & 23 angry law professors

In the Oregonian here. An excerpt:

I do not speak only for myself at the law school when I say that the dean’s response, and the faculty’s letter, were a disgrace. This was a failure of leadership and pedagogy, and opposition to it within the law school was expressed from day one.

This regrettable Halloween event was a teachable moment, but it ended up teaching many wrong lessons. Surely, this was a moment to teach about racial sensitivity and awareness of history, and of what it means to live as a racial minority in this country. But it was also a moment to teach other valuable lessons for law students: Do not rush to judgment. Deliberate carefully, away from emotions running high. Consider all the relevant factors. And show compassion for human fallibility.

At a time of an emboldened pernicious racism, the refusal to recognize the distinction between malicious racism and a stupid but well-intentioned mistake is not only a moral and legal travesty, it is also fodder for the real enemies of racial equality.

In full:

Ofer Raban

On Halloween night, a University of Oregon law professor hosted a private party at her home attended by some faculty and students. She donned a costume representing an African American doctor, including a hospital gown and the coloring of her face.

The professor in question had a long record of advocacy for the rights of minorities. She was even nominated for the university’s Martin Luther King Jr. Award. In fact, she wore the costume to honor an African American hero of hers (Dr. Damon Tweedy, author of “Black Man in a White Coat.”) There seems to be no doubt that there was no malicious intent in donning the costume.

The reaction of the law school dean and some of its faculty was swift: The dean placed the professor on administrative leave and a majority of faculty members signed a letter calling on her to resign.

“We are angry,” proclaimed the letter, twice. “You need to resign. It doesn’t matter what your intentions were. It doesn’t matter if (your conduct) was protected by the First Amendment.”

The idea that intentions don’t matter when evaluating a person’s culpability — which appeared both in the faculty letter and in an email written by an associate dean and circulated to the students — is not just wrong but also contradicted by what law professors preach daily in their classrooms

Measuring individual culpability by reference to one’s intent is a foundational principle of our criminal law, our tort law, our contract law, or our constitutional doctrine. In fact, that principle — absent from primitive legal systems — is considered one of the greatest civilizing forces of our law.

For law professors to claim that intentions don’t matter is, frankly, preposterous. (Even more ludicrous was the remark of another university professor, who wrote to the university president that the absence of a racist intent “makes it worse” in his view, because it showed ignorance and callous disregard for minorities.)

The event in question was attended by some students and faculty, but it did not take place in a classroom or even on campus. The costume was donned at an after-hours private party at the professor’s own home. This, combined with the fact that the costume was donned without any malice — to the contrary, in an attempt to celebrate an American hero — should have obviated any demand for giving up one’s livelihood, let alone a suspension. Moreover, let’s remember that we are dealing with a public university professor at a time that many of us fear might prove challenging to academic freedom.

I do not speak only for myself at the law school when I say that the dean’s response, and the faculty’s letter, were a disgrace. This was a failure of leadership and pedagogy, and opposition to it within the law school was expressed from day one.

This regrettable Halloween event was a teachable moment, but it ended up teaching many wrong lessons. Surely, this was a moment to teach about racial sensitivity and awareness of history, and of what it means to live as a racial minority in this country. But it was also a moment to teach other valuable lessons for law students: Do not rush to judgment. Deliberate carefully, away from emotions running high. Consider all the relevant factors. And show compassion for human fallibility.

At a time of an emboldened pernicious racism, the refusal to recognize the distinction between malicious racism and a stupid but well-intentioned mistake is not only a moral and legal travesty, it is also fodder for the real enemies of racial equality.

Ofer Raban is a professor of law at the University of Oregon.

11/7/2016: Law School Dean explains blackface legal issues, criticizes Schill as unfair

That would be the Dean of the University of Illinois law school, Vikram Amar. In a nutshell, he explains that students have more First Amendment protections than faculty do. On balance he says Professor Schurtz may well still be protected by it, and quite possibly by other law. Read it all, I’ve only posted the ending:

On Academic Freedom, Administrative Fairness, And Blackface

By VIKRAM AMAR

… My second observation is that the First Amendment is not the only potentially relevant legal constraint. Due process (are faculty clearly told what they cannot say so they are not sandbagged?), contract law (tenure is often a contract concept), and state constitutional protections may give public faculty members more latitude than does the First Amendment. And these extra protections may be perfectly appropriate if we do take seriously historical notions of academic freedom.

My last observation is an important one, and that is that critics of Professor Shurtz have themselves erred. President Schill’s quick characterization of Professor Shurtz’s use of blackface as being “in jest” is at odds with her own explanation, and we need remember that there has been no process yet to determine any actual facts. Shurtz’s 23 faculty colleagues assert that her “intentions [don’t] matter.” But whether we are interpreting the First Amendment or deciding whether someone should be required to give up her very livelihood, intent ought clearly to matter a great deal. After all, the reason (correctly identified by those calling for her resignation) that Shurtz’s actions warrant serious scrutiny is that they may undermine her (and the university’s) trust and credibility with students, alumni and the community. But wouldn’t students, alumni and the outside world want to know why she did what she did in deciding how much less they like and trust her and the law school? If she did it to mock African-Americans (or merely “in jest” because she is flippant about race), aren’t they likely to be much more angry and disaffected than if she did it to support the cause of racial equality (like the author in Black Like Me who feigned blackness to document racism), even if her attempt was clumsy, ill-advised and ultimately counterproductive? Again, no process has yet found the full facts (I have no familiarity with Professor Shurtz and am not vouching for her sincerity). But the idea that intent is irrelevant when heavy consequences like resignation are being considered runs counter to most areas of law and moral intuition. And lawyers – especially law professors who are teaching students how to frame arguments — ought to take care to appreciate that.

An account of a recent APLU meeting on this topic, from Inside Higher Ed here. A snippet:

Page, the columnist, said, “I don’t want to call your generation coddled,” but went on to share an example of what he said “troubles me about political correctness.” He cited the reactions of students at Emory University in March when some students chalked “Trump 2016” on campus. Some students said at the time that they felt threatened by the chalkings.

“If there is anything that the First Amendment is for, it is political speech,” he said.

Gillman, of Irvine, offered three strategies he said he hoped research universities would pursue in the wake of the election:

• “Make it as clear as possible that we are doubling down on the values we have of diverse communities of mutual respect,” he said. “The level of rhetoric in this campaign truly created threats and ignited a kind of hate” that needs to be opposed. “Let’s not be shy.”
• Academics need to recognize that there are people in the United States “who feel that they are not being heard,” Gillman said. Whatever scholars may feel about Trump voters, they need to find ways to “reach across the divide of opinion.”
• “We need to remember our scholarly mission,” Gillman said. That means looking at the political trends in the United States and Western Europe, and remembering that “democracies are fragile things,” and that they are challenged by “authoritarian strands” in many countries. Gillman, a scholar of the Constitution, said that universities and their professors “need to spend a bit more time thinking about the conditions that sustain democracy and those that undermine democracy.”

The post from CAS Dean Andrew Marcus on his blog is below. He doesn’t allow public comments, so I’ll respond here. You can too. There is also a change.org petition, with 232 signatures so far.

To: CAS Dean <[email protected]>

Andrew, your post is outrageous. Yes, dressing up in blackface, in an attempt to honor a Black doctor, was stupid and offensive. But why do you feel the need to pile on? Where’s your defense of free speech, privacy, due process, common sense, and basic human decency and compassion towards a colleague whose life’s work for UO has now been left a ruin? I know you are better than this. 

Bill Harbaugh

His post:

Dear Colleagues,

I woke up on this post-election morning to a new world, one I never expected to see. As I thought about communicating with the college, I worried that the message I’ve been planning to post—about the blackface incident and my responsibility as dean—might be the wrong focus on this day.

But the more I thought about it, the more I came to think that this is exactly the time for this communication. I want everyone in our university community to know that the College and the UO want to be a safe harbor for individuals and their creativity, a place that welcomes and embraces all, regardless of gender, sexuality, race, political creed—or however we differ from each other.

I woke up this morning with each and every one of you on my mind. In this time, in this moment, I am even more inspired to work with, help, support, and cherish all the light you bring to this world and to our university.

Andrew Marcus
Tykeson Dean of Arts and Sciences

__________________________________________________________

The past week has been hard. The blackface incident, even experienced from afar as I traveled, was illuminating in a very painful way, bringing focused attention to a seething, underlying set of issues in our campus and in society at large.

Over the past week, I have wondered: What is the role of a dean in responding to an incident like this? I know my obligation is more than that of one individual; I also need to step forward on behalf of the college. But how?

There are many things I—and anyone—can do. Like others, I can express outrage and support for those who feel attacked. Thankfully, many of our campus leaders have already done this, making clear that this incident is utterly unacceptable (see President Schill’s post on this topic, which completely captures my sentiments and intents). Or I can address the many reasons why wearing blackface is so wrong—but again, others have already done this with more historical insight than I can provide (for example, see Professor Matthew Dennis’ post).

Rather than repeat what others have done, I want to do what others cannot do on behalf of the dean’s office, or for me: State the basic principles and actions I personally will follow—principles and actions that I hope will help lead to a better day. Those principles are:

Listen and learn. During the past week I immersed myself in the public commentary, open letters, and campus-wide messaging that the blackface incident generated. I also heard from you personally, or heard your voices through messages conveyed by my associate deans. And finally, I have taken private time to reflect and listen to my heart, to work at understanding the experiences and perspectives of others.

As I heard the pain, anger and anguish—and, in some cases, criticism of me and my office—I strove not to be defensive. Instead, I sought to listen, understand, and adjust my actions and those of the dean’s office to respond to the individual and college-wide needs that you expressed.

As I listened, I came to realize that the open letter Professor Michael Hames-Garcia sent to President Schill was particularly instrumental in affecting my thinking, in helping me learn. In referring to the practice of white people wearing blackface, Professor Hames-Garcia stated, “It’s impossible to understand why black people are so angered by its use unless one knows what it is that black people see when they see white people in blackface.” This simple statement shifted my focus, caused me to reexamine the event from a different perspective. It brought to life for me how frightful the blackface caricature is, not just for African Americans, but for all who experience systemic discrimination.

Reveal and respond. The blackface incident revealed something I think we all know already, that different individuals on this campus have radically different experiences. These lived experiences, these truths, need to be revealed by the people living them, but often those individuals feel they cannot share those experiences safely. As dean, my job is to make it safe and easy for everyone in CAS to communicate their perspectives and concerns to me, and to respond productively to what I hear—particularly as it pertains to improving our work climate and our hiring practices.

Other truths take the form of cumulative metrics. Such reports are stripped of personality, but are still impactful. Two years ago I produced an Elements of Diversity in the College of Arts and Sciences poster as part of Yvette Alex Assensoh’s 2014 Showcase Oregon event. This data analysis again reveals what we already know—that different pockets in our college experience diversity, or lack of diversity, in very different ways. In other words, there are many areas where we have a long way yet to go in terms of equitable representation.

In the future, I commit to working with Institutional Research and the Office of Equity and Inclusion to update these data on a more regular basis and to provide them to all departments within CAS. Just as we have a publically posted Budget/FTE/SCH Dashboard and a Graduate Program Dashboard for the entire college and each unit, so we will have a Diversity Dashboard. Let’s be open about the makeup of who we are , and who we should become.

Less talk, more action. Unless acted upon, the above principles are just words. What our college community deserves is sustained, focused action. To that end and well prior to the blackface event, Senior Associate Dean Karen Ford began writing a blog post on Thinking about Diversity. We intend to post this in the near future.

Karen’s posting will outline the strategies that we have launched and plan to launch from the CAS dean’s office. Activities we have already supported include: launching an African American Studies cluster of excellence; recruiting and hiring top-level faculty from underrepresented populations through the Target of Opportunity process; mandating implicit bias training for search committees; supporting an ethnic literature postdoctoral program in English; and more. But this is only a start; many challenges remain for us to overcome. All of us in the dean’s office look forward to working with you on these challenges.

The blackface incident has been hurtful, but it has—with your help—forced me to think about the urgency of diversity issues in a deeper, more personal way. The pain and anger I have heard have deepened my commitment to diversifying our college; to improving the climate for our underrepresented faculty, staff and students; and to learning more from all of you in the days and years ahead as we work to make our public university one that is truly a university for all.

As always, please share your suggestions with me via the Suggestion Box, or e-mail me directly.

Session Information