Welcome To The Angry Studies Department
A commenter over at Volokh-land used that term in his remark, and I had to steal it. He wrote:
...Every major state school has a host of angry studies departments, because those universities found that, shockingly, when they let in a bunch people who weren't otherwise qualified solely because of their skin color, that many of those people weren't capable of competing with their peers in real fields of study. The schools set up the angry studies programs to bolster graduation rates among those who couldn't compete in finance or physics.
The post he left his comment on, by constitutional scholar and UCLA law prof, Eugene Volokh, is about a UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center study called "Hate Speech on Commercial Talk Radio."
What, according to them, is "hate speech"? Here are their "types":
We identified four types of speech that, through negative statements, create a climate of hate and prejudice:
(1) false facts [including "simple falsehoods, exaggerated statements, or decontextualized facts [that] rendered the statements misleading"],
(2) flawed argumentation,
(3) divisive language, and
(4) dehumanizing metaphors (table 1).
Oh, those dehumanizing metaphors! (I use them daily -- about myself and just about everybody else on the planet. And if you don't like it, well, you're just a big girl's blouse! Or an asshat! Or an law-breaking, taxpayer dollar-sucking illegal alien asshat!)
"Illegal aliens" are... (thanks, Hate-ipedia, for the definitions!):
In U.S. law, an alien is "any person not a citizen or national of the United States."[1Illegal immigration refers to immigration across national borders in a way that violates the immigration laws of the destination country.
And, finally, "criminals" are:
Oh, come on, lint-for-brains. (Was that hateful, or merely...lame?)
Their example of "hate speech" follows. (It would be hilarious, except that I never manage to find attacks on the First Amendment and free speech very funny, just in case they succeed):
Table 1. Analysis of Hate Speech from The John & Ken Show
EXAMPLE "And this is all under the Gavin Newsom administration and the Gavin Newsom policy in San Francisco of letting underage illegal alien criminals loose" (from the July 21, 2008, broadcast).TARGETS
Vulnerable group: foreign nationals (undocumented people).
Social institutions: policy and political organizations (city policy and mayor's office).FALSE FACTS
The sanctuary policy preceded Gavin Newsom's tenure as San Francisco's mayor, and neither Newsom nor the sanctuary policy supports "letting underage illegal alien criminals loose."FLAWED ARGUMENTATION
Guilt by association is used to make the hosts' point. Undocumented youth and those who are perceived as their endorsers at the institutional level are stigmatized by being associated with criminality.DIVISIVE LANGUAGE
Criminalized undocumented youth and their perceived validators (Gavin Newsom and the sanctuary policy) are depicted as a threat to San Francisco citizens, setting up an "us versus them" opposition.ANALYSIS The language depicts the hosts' targets (undocumented people, city policy, and Mayor Gavin Newsom) as dangerous, criminal, and collusive. In addition, the focus of that policy (undocumented people) becomes reduced to "underage illegal alien criminals."
An excerpt from Eugene's response:
So describing a policy as involving "letting underage illegal alien criminals loose" is now "hate speech" aimed not just at underage illegal alien criminals but at all "illegal alien[s]." The vagueness and potential breadth of the phrase "hate speech" is a pretty substantial reason -- though just one among many -- to resist the calls for a "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment. And the vagueness and potential breadth is also a reason to be skeptical of uses of the phrase even outside the law: It's very easy to define "hate speech" as you like (or leave it undefined, as some arguments do), and use it to condemn people who express a wide range of views that you disapprove of....Even more likely, such findings (or likely future findings) by the FCC will often lead to a station's feeling pressured to stop such supposedly "misleading" "hate speech" in order to avoid even a modest risk of losing its license and thus losing its shareholders' investment. Given the degree to which "hate speech" has become a term in the legal debate and not just in discussions of morality or media ethics, labeling speech (especially speech on licensed broadcasters) as "hate speech" can trigger legal regulation and not just public condemnation.







The schools set up the angry studies programs to bolster graduation rates among those who couldn't compete in finance or physics.
A recurring question is what to do with those who can't compete. We usually offer make-work, or institutionalization. What is unique/troubling here is that we have a cohort demanding equal outcomes for the non-achievers, and this often includes trampling the achievers.
doombuggy at February 21, 2009 7:01 AM
All non-documented foreign nationals living in the US are double plus good. How dare you think otherwise!
momof3 at February 21, 2009 7:51 AM
I just posted a piece a week or so ago about how illegal aliens are costing California $5 billion a year -- as our state is about to go bankrupt. The law needs to be enforced, they need to be deported, and the 14th Amendment needs to be amended so non-citizens who come over here pregnant and squat and drop babies will not create instant citizens. These are not the times of wide-open spaces. We live in a welfare state, and I'm disturbed enough about all the welfare we have to provide to major corporations and irresponsible assholes in homes they can't afford who are here legally.
Last week, I read a piece about children who were born here to Mexican parents, who walk across the border to a city called Columbus to go to school every day on the U.S. taxpayer dime. No thanks! Again, time to amend the 14th amendment.
Amy Alkon at February 21, 2009 7:55 AM
Thank goodness for the definition of "hate speech." We can now acccurately label everything said on behalf of feminism as hate speech.
Jay R at February 21, 2009 7:59 AM
The lengths they went to come to the conclusion that the innocuous statement on radio was hate speech reminds me of what is said about lengthy Supreme Court decisions. Which is, you can tell how bad a decision/argument is by the lengths used to explain it.
I wonder if that class will ever diagram some of the statements made by Keith Olberman on MSNBC?
sean at February 21, 2009 8:09 AM
Colleges and universities are in the later stages of being a scam. The ancient Chinese required a long course in Confucious to be admitted to the bureaucracy. We require a long course in college to be admitted to serious work.
College does not have to provide a measurable result, so they provide any convenient result or no result. They are separated from the needs of their customers, except for providing the "diploma", a mysterious piece of paper that can be awarded in any subject. So, colleges and universities are being run for their own advantage, not for students. Academic "freedom" has become academic "anything".
College is an Expensive IQ Test
-- They Let You Pay Them. It Doesn't Mean They Are Worth It.
From 11/2008 Washington Monthly by Kevin Carey:
Andrew_M_Garland at February 21, 2009 8:17 AM
Let's see (Been 9 years since I did HTML)
Dave Lincoln at February 21, 2009 9:11 AM
Just trying to end these italics, is all.
Test
Should be italics
Should be normal.
Dave Lincoln at February 21, 2009 9:14 AM
damn
Dave Lincoln at February 21, 2009 9:14 AM
Couldnt we accuse tis group of hate speech?
After all tey are TARGETING daytime broadcasters and are using FALSE FACTS by not admitting that while Newsom's admin may not have come up with this policy they do endorse and enforce it.
They are using Flawed Argumentation by mentioning the name of the show and placing all the blame on the hosts without mentioning the people working behind the sceans or the broadcasting comapny and its parent corp, they also claim the show considers the Mayor to be a "dangeous, colluding criminal" which is patently false and grounds for a libel suit.
S why would we listen to people who spout hae speech on what constitutes hate speech?
lujlp at February 21, 2009 9:20 AM
Apparently, people are seeing a lot of italics here somewhere? I'm on a Mac, and on Safari, Camino, and AOL's browser, I'm not seeing it. Please advise.
Amy Alkon at February 21, 2009 9:45 AM
"The schools set up the angry studies programs to bolster graduation rates among those who couldn't compete in finance or physics."
"A recurring question is what to do with those who can't compete."
That's simple: teach them to do something they can do! Despite what the politicians and do-gooders think, a college education is not appropriate for everyone. Tell me what a carpenter, plumber, or painter needs from college?
These are absolutely essential and respected professions, and what they need is vocational education followed by a good apprenticeship program.
bradley13 at February 21, 2009 9:51 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/02/welcome-to-the-10.html#comment-1635334">comment from bradley13Tell me what a carpenter, plumber, or painter needs from college? These are absolutely essential and respected professions, and what they need is vocational education followed by a good apprenticeship program.
I think there should be more emphasis on these professions as viable and respected options. Also, they aren't necessarily the end of the road. My landlord, a working man from England, came here and worked construction and repair on houses, and now probably owns 20 houses with his longtime girlfriend, and rents out a place they own in some beach city in Mexico, too (and not TJ or someplace disgusting).
Amy Alkon
at February 21, 2009 9:59 AM
Amy,
All the comments seem to be coming through in italics. (I'm on a dell at the library, that's about the extent of my ability to describe the tech I'm on.)
Free speech? What's that? It doesn't exist anymore. I have some vague memory of someone (I wish I could remember who since I think of it often these days for some "strange" reason) saying when the revolution comes, they'll still it America but it'll be a different country. I can't even remember if this was someone I liked or not but they sure as fuck called it.
T's Grammy at February 21, 2009 10:03 AM
Sorry. That should read...
They'll still call it America, etc.
T's Grammy at February 21, 2009 10:04 AM
All the comments from a certain point, all the comments on this entry, or all the comments on my entire blog? Thanks, please let me know.
Amy Alkon at February 21, 2009 10:06 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/02/welcome-to-the-10.html#comment-1635340">comment from Amy AlkonPlease refresh your browsers. I put another close ital tag at the end of doom's comment. (Doombuggy closed it properly, but perhaps something's wrong.) Gregg has to be somewhere, but will look later in the afternoon. Please bear with me and please keep me posted on the ital situation, because I'm on a Mac and everything's appearing fine.
Gregg is building me a store on the site (with links to books I recommend, etc. -- I get a little kickback from Amazon) to make up for the downturn in papers/papers going out of business, but he doesn't think the construction is what's causing the problem.
Amy Alkon
at February 21, 2009 10:19 AM
Last year, when a major battle about Free Speech occurred here in Canada, I was mildly amused every time I saw an American commenting about how grateful they were to live in a country where free speech is guaranteed ... no matter what.
I told each of them to be very careful about taking free speech for granted because there are insidious groups in every country whose sole mission in life is to shut up those who disagree with them.
In terms of Free Speech, I do wonder if America will be the same place 4 years from now.
Robert W. (Vancouver, BC) at February 21, 2009 11:07 AM
Thanks so much to the commenter (not sure if this person wishes to be named) who figured out it was an unclosed tag within my entry, and e--mailed me. Oddly, the ital wasn't appearing on a Mac - it all looked fine on Safari, Camino, and AOL.
Please refresh your browsers or close and reopen and refresh and let me know if you're still getting the ital.
Amy Alkon at February 21, 2009 12:46 PM
I hate that singing bastard Barney. Oops, is that now hate speech against all purple dinosaurs? All Barneys? (Damn you Rubble and Fife!)
Sio at February 21, 2009 1:24 PM
Just 'cause it'll make you smile.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAjFnJuk1Aw
Pirate Jo at February 21, 2009 1:36 PM
unclosed tag within my entry, and e--mailed me
It was just hard to explain the problem when you can't use the various fonts to show what you are seeing. And each browser is dependent on the underlying OS for how renders a page.
------------------------
As for hate speech, what drugs are they taking? -- And can I get some?
It amazes me that such a small group who has no real touch with reality can do so much damage.
And it comes from both sides -- but mostly it is the golden rule: (S)He who has the gold, makes the rules.
Jim P. at February 21, 2009 1:58 PM
Amy- I've been checking this entry off and on since you posted and I've noticed no problems. I'm using a Mac and browsing w/ Firefox.
Also have checked w/ the Ubuntu machine (Firefox browser) as well as the Windoze machine using Firefox and IE and there was no problem.
I think Jim P. has it right w/ the individuals browsers and underlying OS.
As far as hate speech goes- Every time anyone opens their mouth and speaks, it can be construed by someone else, as hate speech. To try to define it, or outlaw it, is foolish and impossible. BUT it won't stop the asshats from trying.
Truth at February 21, 2009 3:15 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/02/welcome-to-the-10.html#comment-1635398">comment from TruthThanks - apparently, the problems weren't apparent on a Mac. I couldn't see any problem at all on Camino, Safari or AOL's loser browser.
Amy Alkon
at February 21, 2009 3:25 PM
Remember-we don't call them italics. They are Italic Americans,
jon at February 21, 2009 5:15 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/02/welcome-to-the-10.html#comment-1635407">comment from jonThanks. I needed that!
Amy Alkon
at February 21, 2009 5:36 PM
Some people will not be satisfied until the definition of hate speech is anything they disagree with.
Jay at February 21, 2009 6:16 PM
There's a way to kill these two birds with one stone.
All publicly financed colleges and universities establish a 'student code', which is an implied contract between the institution and its students. This is where anti-harassment policies are typically defined.
If violations of these policies were open to civil action (e.g. lawsuits), this could have the salutary effect of both motivating schools to limit and clarify their anti-harassment policies, and also to reform their various identity programs.
Joe at February 23, 2009 10:02 AM
Leave a comment