[smc]

To clarify, the protest in question was not to get tenure but to support Derrick Bell's call for greater diversity in the faculty and granting of tenure to minorities. Now, on to answer Tracy Coxx, as promised earlier.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Harvard should absolutely not deny tenure based on race. At the same time, they should not grant tenure based on race. Both those actions are by definition, racist.

Ensuring diversity in a university faculty has long required some form of affirmative action in hiring and tenure-granting. Your characterization of this as "racist" suggests that there is no real point in trying to have a real discussion about the issue, unless you are willing to acknowledge the disadvantage that people of color have generally had because of the discrimination they have suffered from an early age, which results in far fewer potential professors.

By the way, Derrick Bell was granted tenure (before the protest in the "Breitbart video," because he was an eminent scholar, first and foremost. Affirmative action for tenure is not about granting exclusively on the basis of race, but on making an extra effort to find qualified candidates who will bring diversity to a faculty ... because such diversity strengthens the educational process for students.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

But anyways, I'll grant that it's important to Obama that a black professor have tenure. It's interesting that he throws all his support behind this guy though. Is it because he identifies with prof Bell, or is it just because prof. Bell happens to be the only choice at the time and any black professor would do?

Obama, like most of the Harvard Law School students, identified with Bell's call for diversity in the faculty ... precisely because they saw it as good for their own educations.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

... You're quick to dismiss the two possible answers I listed rather than refuting them. I guess you're accepting at least one of them. Your response is that of the media's - ignore it and hope that it goes away. The president is endorsing a guy with this extremist racist ideology and the media is going to just shrug. This is the same media who stormed Alaska when Sarah Palin was announced as McCain's running mate and paid hackers for her emails and did exhaustive investigations on her family.

What a crock of shit. What a poor attempt to change the subject by making it about the media and bringing up Sarah Palin. (By the way, I think that the stuff about Sarah Palin's family was disgusting and shameful to have released publicly, regardless of whether any of it was true).

You should have worked with Breitbart, because by calling Bell "a guy with this extreme racist ideology" and then saying the "president is endorsing" him, you have done exactly what Breitbart did with the smear of Shirley Sherrod (I refer those interested to Google the words Breitbart and Sherrod)

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Oh well, that's my particular frustration if anyone cares. Breitbart is out of the way. Obama can go back to having MediaMatters dictate stories for the news outlets and strong arm all opposition for the rest of the election.

Get out much? How's the view with your head in the sand? The idea that "MediaMatters dictates stories for the news outlets" and that the opposition is being strong-armed is nothing but talking points. It's not real discussion Prove your patently false claim.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Back to one of the relevant topics. What does everyone think about Obama's support for Bell? Is it because he identifies with an extremist like prof Bell, or is it just because prof. Bell happens to be the only choice at the time and any black professor would do?

I refer all to the points above. Bell's tenure was not in question. And define "extremist" in this context. I think it means anyone who doesn't correspond to the TracyCoxx world view.