another idiot RU prof bringing shame to our University
- Thread starter Piscataway
- Start date
- Status
Seems like the University of Kansas agrees with you ( 2013 article):
Kansas regents adopt policy on when social media use can get faculty fired | InsideHigherEd
On Wednesday, the Kansas Board of Regents changed that, and adopted rules under which faculty members and other employees can be fired for "improper use of social media"
https://www.insidehighered.com/news...y-when-social-media-use-can-get-faculty-fired
See, the problem here is you have no clue what you are talking about. The idea that academic freedom should only cover scholarly publications is just laughably absurd. I mean, that might be what you think should be the case, but I can assure you from ten years teaching at the college level that such a viewpoint would not be shared by almost any college professor.
Kumar's comments are one hundred percent in line with her scholarly agenda, which a quick search reveals has lately focused on media representations of violence in the muslim world, particularly the way that western sources disproportionately focus on the brutality of the Muslim world while excusing the endemic violence of the west.
She was HIRED because of her research. You now think she should be sanctioned for speaking publicly or tweeting about ideas related to her scholarly agenda?
That makes zero sense.
Kumar's comments are one hundred percent in line with her scholarly agenda, which a quick search reveals has lately focused on media representations of violence in the muslim world, particularly the way that western sources disproportionately focus on the brutality of the Muslim world while excusing the endemic violence of the west.
She was HIRED because of her research. You now think she should be sanctioned for speaking publicly or tweeting about ideas related to her scholarly agenda?
That makes zero sense.
Hudson
Agree!
I called Pres. Barchi's office , the Chanellor's office / spoke with the Assoc. Dean of the School Kumar represents. I told her to FIRE her...and that I would not deliver any $$$ until they do.
I'm not a big shot....and don't hold any power...but I did send off my thoughts / posted them on CE board. So far I've receveived about 7-10 repsonses...all but one stating they would take action too (these people are primarily physicians / attorneys).
I don't understand how someone can make comments that lend support to an entity (terrorist) that our POTUS has stated we're at war. This act alone is TREASONOUS. And if not (by some technicality) how does anyone know that she isn't busy recruiting for ISIS, poisoning the minds of potential jidhadists while lending other kinds of support as well (e.g. financial, recruiting, more?).
She needs to go....period.
MO
Back in the 1960's a history prof (Genovese) stated at a Vietnam teach in that he would welcome a Viet Cong victory. Lots of public out cry, demands for his firing. Its the reason Boy's State is at Rider not at RU - the American Legion pulled their program out of RU because of the flap.
Only tenured prof I ever remember being fired at RU was a Chem prof (Fillipo) who was making his grad students do manual labor in his yard.
Only tenured prof I ever remember being fired at RU was a Chem prof (Fillipo) who was making his grad students do manual labor in his yard.
Most higher ed institutions say outrageous liberal things, Rutgers is not unique. This professor's tweets are no reason to not apply to RU.
This professor looks like a foreigner and she doesn't really know what she is talking about. To side with gruesome ISIS is horrible.
You really read a lot between the lines that I don't see. She has a record of being opposed to US policy in the middle east. She made a negative comparison of our actions to an entity that is fairly universally considered in a very negative light. You may disagree with her facts or find her hyperbolic but to conclude she is supporting ISIS, or Treasonous, or recruiting for ISIS, and other ramblings is a scared mind looking for demons in the dark.
I'd say more so because she is an agent of the school and a liar. Or someone who teaches an agenda without any facts to back up her work. A prof has got to have credibility to be of value to a school I would (LIKE) to think.
Because you are an employee of the school you get to make shit up and say it on behalf of the school and that's ok? That's a pile of dog[poop]. (and I'm no big fan of this government or think the USA has never done anything wrong)...
Eh, who cares? Yeah, she's crazy but Rutgers is super liberal along with the majority of college campuses. She should be able to say whatever she wants. Rutgers should be more concerned whether she is a competent professor.
What really bothers me here is that these people think that Condoleeza Rice's invitation was rescinded. That's not the case. Condoleeza Rice declined the offer because she didn't want to bring too much attention to herself on a day that should be about the students. Good for her.
What really bothers me here is that these people think that Condoleeza Rice's invitation was rescinded. That's not the case. Condoleeza Rice declined the offer because she didn't want to bring too much attention to herself on a day that should be about the students. Good for her.
The only thing that frightens me is that you/ people like you will support her. She wraps her Islamaphobic rhetoric in the US Constitution and is a hyprocrit: since she helped lead the charge to stop Condi Rice from speaking at Rutgers. So agree with her ....or hit the highway?
Sounds like great material for a Mohammed Cartoon!
MO
Rather than show evidence that supports what you claim you double down on guilt by association. You have some sort of position and seem to only define people as being with you or against you. Sorry to break the news, but the world doesn't revolve around thee. Political positions are a bit more complicated than you make them or to be. You seem to believe that being opposed to someone gives you free reign to be dishonest about them.
I guess when you're losing a fight, you might as well get in some cheap shots before hitting the canvas.
My masters degree at Duke and 2 years in the RU Poil Sci PhD program, passing of my comps and being ABD in the RU Poli Sci department would suggest that I *might* know what I'm talking about.
A tweet that is "100% inline with your scholarly agenda" would refer the reader to a document, source, citation, article, book or verified piece of information--ESPECIALLY when the tweet is inflammatory in nature.
My research agenda was focused on actions of non-state actors in the middle east and the former Soviet states. I can ASSURE you, the number she tossed out, like the flaming bomb it was intended to be, is not verifiable by any legitimate source.
Am I supposed to be impressed by your unfinished degree or something? Unlike you, I actually have a PhD, so until you defend chill out with your d__k waving.
Why don't you go ask your dissertation advisor if he thinks his or her public comments on foreign policy aren't protected by the principle of academic freedom unless they appear in a peer reviewed journal. That would be good for a laugh.
Right off the right wingers are off the bat with their favorite tripe on this board- that Condi was forced out. How can anyone even think your positions reasonable when you start with a lie?
For all the "I won't donate to RU because I'm a right wing lunatic" good luck finding any p5 school that has a roster of professors campaigning for Trump with Faux News on in the background in the faculty lounge. Go root for Liberty where students were required to attend Ted Cruz giving a speech about freedom. Anyone who doesn't donate to their alma mater for political reasons is without exception, a complete and utter moron. You were 18, you knew what RU was. It was always liberal, and all of us alums are "takers" who took a government subsidized....aka socialized...degree courtesy of the NJ taxpayers. You were free to pick yourself by your bootstraps and go to Oral Roberts. You didn't. Your bad.
It is funny to me also that the same people complaining about this professor defended Trump saying Mexicans were rapists and criticized those who cut ties with him, while demanding RU fire this professor...so it's PC culture run amok for him but her opinion is fireable?
They both have the right just like everyone has the right to criticize ties with them, what no public employer can do for anyone actually concerned with the law, which is as only sometimes concern of the tin foil hat crowd, is fire someone for speaking out about a public concern as is the case here and would be if Trump was employed. At the same time if a veteran in her class or a Mexican in a theoretical Trump class found such an environment to be hostile they might have a case.
That has nothing to do with Barchi or donations, so just admit you're cheap and save the histrionics.
For all the "I won't donate to RU because I'm a right wing lunatic" good luck finding any p5 school that has a roster of professors campaigning for Trump with Faux News on in the background in the faculty lounge. Go root for Liberty where students were required to attend Ted Cruz giving a speech about freedom. Anyone who doesn't donate to their alma mater for political reasons is without exception, a complete and utter moron. You were 18, you knew what RU was. It was always liberal, and all of us alums are "takers" who took a government subsidized....aka socialized...degree courtesy of the NJ taxpayers. You were free to pick yourself by your bootstraps and go to Oral Roberts. You didn't. Your bad.
It is funny to me also that the same people complaining about this professor defended Trump saying Mexicans were rapists and criticized those who cut ties with him, while demanding RU fire this professor...so it's PC culture run amok for him but her opinion is fireable?
They both have the right just like everyone has the right to criticize ties with them, what no public employer can do for anyone actually concerned with the law, which is as only sometimes concern of the tin foil hat crowd, is fire someone for speaking out about a public concern as is the case here and would be if Trump was employed. At the same time if a veteran in her class or a Mexican in a theoretical Trump class found such an environment to be hostile they might have a case.
That has nothing to do with Barchi or donations, so just admit you're cheap and save the histrionics.
The comparison to ISIS was a rotten one indeed. She does not get a pass from me. However, the U.S. both past and present, has shown that it can be brutal in its own right.
You have a Ph.D.- thanks for the heads up.
Please let us what field you're in so we can avoid your lectures.
MO
I think Obama actually hates America . Only president in my lifetime that I've heard speak where that is evident . Even the guy Obama is tied for as worse president , jimmy carter, was all America compared to this guy.
socawlege.com/rutgers-professor-deepa-kumar-united-states-more-brutal-than-isis-its-sad-when-people-blame-hamas-for-conflict
-And interestingly, in another article that refers to the one linked above, the opening sentence of that piece reads, "Socawlege recently exposed some of the anti-US and anti-Israel statements of a professor at...where else...Rutgers".
Ahhh yes, Professor Kumar, while I'm sure you believe in your fevered little mind you're doing the uneducated masses a "service" by voicing your...ahem... "accurate" views and opinions, ('cause you certainly aren't doing the University any favors with your rhetoric, that's for sure), all it seems you're really accomplishing by opening your mouth is that you keep getting yourself in "deepa and deepa".
-And interestingly, in another article that refers to the one linked above, the opening sentence of that piece reads, "Socawlege recently exposed some of the anti-US and anti-Israel statements of a professor at...where else...Rutgers".
Ahhh yes, Professor Kumar, while I'm sure you believe in your fevered little mind you're doing the uneducated masses a "service" by voicing your...ahem... "accurate" views and opinions, ('cause you certainly aren't doing the University any favors with your rhetoric, that's for sure), all it seems you're really accomplishing by opening your mouth is that you keep getting yourself in "deepa and deepa".
Last edited:
You are the one who made it personal by suggesting that I don't know what I'm talking about. Since you are new here, I provided you some context to illustrate that I do know what I'm talking about. As for the additional personal dig about my "unfinished degree", I decided that the department at RU was a touch too radical for my tastes and left to pursue a different degree--which I completed this Spring. But thanks for asking.
Back to the subject at hand, Professor.
I never said that the only forum for protected speech is a peer reviewed journal. For someone with a PhD your comprehension skills are alarmingly weak. I'll save you the scroll up. What I asked was a simple question.
WHY are inflammatory tweets protected academic speech? Your continued reply is, "because they are." I'll rephrase the question. Are all tweets, even if they are patently inflammatory, protected academic speech, as long as they are vaguely related to the person's academic area of interest, simply because the tweeter is an academic? That seems to be your central point. She studies media representations in the Middle East, therefore any tweet she makes about the middle east is protected? My advisor would have laughed at that thought...but probably not for the reasons you suggest.
If she tweets tomorrow, "Israel purposely murders babies yet the media focuses on Hamas." #hamasmisunderstood #solidarityforhamas" is that protected speech in your view? If she urged the Muslim Student Association to form a human chain preventing Jewish students from getting into Hillel is that protected? I'm sure you see where one can take this.
I don't care what her opinions are. I don't care that she hates Israel. Or that she hates America. Or that she hates Rutgers football and basketball (which she does if you read her twitter timeline or know anything about her). I don't even want her fired or censured. I'm simply contesting the idea that her position as an academic affords her the RIGHT to say anything she wants on social media and/or traditional media and those comments are protected.
It's not as black and white as you suggest. Universities have issued directives and clarifications on the matter. Some in favor of protection and some not. The idea that the conversation is "laughable" because some disagree with you, says more about you than us.
Lastly, have you seen her CV? Where is her PhD from? What is her research agenda? Her department of Communication profile that has no educational information, no research agenda beyond very generic subjects, no links to SCHOLARLY publications. Her personal website lists no educational info. if you google "Deepa Kumar Rutgers CV" you get no direct hits on her CV. What academic have you EVER seen without a CV online? So, for you to toss out that she was hired specifically for her research agenda is a difficult claim to back-up. Go to her website and look at her "articles." You won't find any recent publications in academic journals. You'll find names like Salon, The New York Times, International Socialist Review, Socialist Worker. She hasn't published a journal article in going on 6 years. Her early career journal publications have very little to do with what she comments on now--other than the anti-American, socialist currents that shape her world view. So, you'd likely be wrong that she was "hired for her research agenda" with the implication that her research agenda then, matches her anti American activism now.
Then let him major in business or engineering, not journalism and media studies. He should also be the one making the decision about what he should and should not be exposed to as a college student.
Don't let careless and insensitive remarks by someone you disagree with be an excuse to bash the university and a reason to withdraw support from your alma mater. The university extends way beyond the classroom.
She is a regular on Democracy Now. They have about a 12-18 regular contributors who rotate in and out as current events dictate. Much like radical right media, radical left media has an incestuous relationship with itself. Regular contributors to Democracy Now also tend to write for Salon or appear on Bill Maher. She is also leveraging her credentials as a B10 professor at RU. That gives her legitimacy and gravitas.
And that is really the point. While some lightning rod professors do more for the university than the university does for them (Cornell West or Paul Krugman at Princeton for example), this is a case where the university does more for the lightning rod professor. RU gives her radical views standing under the guise of B10 quality scholarship. Upon closer look, her current "scholarship" is nothing more than inflammatory commentary, tweets and blogging.
That, more than anything, is the problem here.
First RUHudson, you're right: the "unfinished degree" dig was unnecessary. I apologize. Congratulations on your graduation this year. Best of luck to you. I also finished recently: this past Fall. Being done with graduate school is a huge weight off, isn't it?
Her PhD is from Pitt.
http://www.culturalstudies.pitt.edu/alumni
Her work directly relates to her tweet. Here is a book blurb that speaks to her research into the reception of Muslim violence in the West.
"In response to the events of 9/11, the Bush administration launched a “war on terror” ushering in an era of anti-Muslim racism, or Islamophobia. However, 9/11 alone did not create Islamophobia. This book examines the current backlash within the context of Islamophobia’s origins in the historic relationship between East and West."
"She is currently working on a third book on the cultural politics of the War on Terror."
An excerpt from her article on ISIS and its propagandistic utility to those who wish to ramp up US militarism:
" ISIS also represents a dream in terms of US propaganda. It serves to bolster the aims of the Global War on Terror and to justify a vastly expanded national security state. Since the Snowden revelations there has been growing concern among Americans of the gigantic surveillance apparatus of the NSA. There has been a greater skepticism of drone wars. The box office success of Dirty Wars and its Oscar nomination is an indication of a growing war weariness among the American public. It is this war fatigue that scuttled the intervention into Syria that was proposed last year.
What better to marshal collective anger than a horrendous group like ISIS that cold bloodedly kills Americans, that ruthlessly destroys anyone who disagrees with it, that persecutes religious minorities and is the very prototype of the evil terrorist threat? This threat has justified air strikes in Iraq, increased surveillance in Syria as well as a greater escalation including airstrikes by the US, and regional and international involvement in both countries over the coming weeks and years. In short, the very thing that causes ire among Jihads (Osama bin Laden was particularly incensed by US troops in Saudi Arabia), and that allows them recruit, is what the US proposes to do."
this is from an article where she challenges dominant narratives about Muslim barbarity vs. Western enlightenment, specifically in regard to the treatment of women:
"The answer lies in a ubiquitous, taken-for-granted ideological framework that has been developed over two centuries in the West. This framework, referred to by scholars as colonial feminism, is based on the appropriation of women’s rights in the service of empire. Birthed in the nineteenth century in the context of European colonialism, it rests on the construction of a barbaric, misogynistic “Muslim world” that must be civilized by a liberal, enlightened West; a rhetoric also known as gendered Orientalism."
I think it's perfectly clear that her tweet is a discursive artifact of her research agenda. It's no different than what she might say about her work in a classroom or in a television interview. Her entire critical agenda is about challenging our sense of moral superiority vis a vis the Muslim world.
I don't agree with her tweet. I do, however, see no reason it should not fall under the penumbra of academic freedom. To label the tweet "inflammatory" is wholly subjective, an echo of your own political ideology. Providing safe haven for ideological conflict is at the heart of academic freedom.
Her PhD is from Pitt.
http://www.culturalstudies.pitt.edu/alumni
Her work directly relates to her tweet. Here is a book blurb that speaks to her research into the reception of Muslim violence in the West.
"In response to the events of 9/11, the Bush administration launched a “war on terror” ushering in an era of anti-Muslim racism, or Islamophobia. However, 9/11 alone did not create Islamophobia. This book examines the current backlash within the context of Islamophobia’s origins in the historic relationship between East and West."
"She is currently working on a third book on the cultural politics of the War on Terror."
An excerpt from her article on ISIS and its propagandistic utility to those who wish to ramp up US militarism:
" ISIS also represents a dream in terms of US propaganda. It serves to bolster the aims of the Global War on Terror and to justify a vastly expanded national security state. Since the Snowden revelations there has been growing concern among Americans of the gigantic surveillance apparatus of the NSA. There has been a greater skepticism of drone wars. The box office success of Dirty Wars and its Oscar nomination is an indication of a growing war weariness among the American public. It is this war fatigue that scuttled the intervention into Syria that was proposed last year.
What better to marshal collective anger than a horrendous group like ISIS that cold bloodedly kills Americans, that ruthlessly destroys anyone who disagrees with it, that persecutes religious minorities and is the very prototype of the evil terrorist threat? This threat has justified air strikes in Iraq, increased surveillance in Syria as well as a greater escalation including airstrikes by the US, and regional and international involvement in both countries over the coming weeks and years. In short, the very thing that causes ire among Jihads (Osama bin Laden was particularly incensed by US troops in Saudi Arabia), and that allows them recruit, is what the US proposes to do."
this is from an article where she challenges dominant narratives about Muslim barbarity vs. Western enlightenment, specifically in regard to the treatment of women:
"The answer lies in a ubiquitous, taken-for-granted ideological framework that has been developed over two centuries in the West. This framework, referred to by scholars as colonial feminism, is based on the appropriation of women’s rights in the service of empire. Birthed in the nineteenth century in the context of European colonialism, it rests on the construction of a barbaric, misogynistic “Muslim world” that must be civilized by a liberal, enlightened West; a rhetoric also known as gendered Orientalism."
I think it's perfectly clear that her tweet is a discursive artifact of her research agenda. It's no different than what she might say about her work in a classroom or in a television interview. Her entire critical agenda is about challenging our sense of moral superiority vis a vis the Muslim world.
I don't agree with her tweet. I do, however, see no reason it should not fall under the penumbra of academic freedom. To label the tweet "inflammatory" is wholly subjective, an echo of your own political ideology. Providing safe haven for ideological conflict is at the heart of academic freedom.
The good thing is - no one outside of Rutgers grads really notices this stuff. I mean they might see it on the news, but for the most part, they wont remember this afternoon who said, and by tomorrow they will have forgotten that it was said at all.
Lavious-
Perhaps the fact RUHudson is an ex NAVY SEAL, and has spent years in the Middle East shapes his ideology.
Perhaps the fact RUHudson is an ex NAVY SEAL, and has spent years in the Middle East shapes his ideology.
So you cite something but won't comment on it because you didn't actually write it?
Why are you even here? I mean, other than the obvious (to this point) attempt to inflate your sense of self-worth.
As for Kumar.. Her Phd is in Communications.. NOT History
I'd like to ask why didn't she write the book about Islamophobia before 9-11 if her working theory is that it existed long before 9-11? Here is an interesting review of her book.
here are some evaluations of her teaching style from RateMyProfessor
I'd like to ask why didn't she write the book about Islamophobia before 9-11 if her working theory is that it existed long before 9-11? Here is an interesting review of her book.
here are some evaluations of her teaching style from RateMyProfessor
Last edited:
No offense, but can you read? I was establishing that her tweet was related to her research. Keep up.
- Status
