I'm not sure, but I think you may be misinterpreting Prof. Brown's letter. As it was reported to me (and I was told that there was discussion of it in the big honkin faculty meeting a few days ago), the point was not that one should refrain from offering criticisms in such circumstances -- but only that one should be careful in the way one goes about doing so. In particular, when you have the first black president in IU's history, and you're going to engage in some fairly unprecedented levels of faculty censureship of the president's office, it would be smart to bring in some high-profile black faculty on the ground level of such protests.

Anyhow, as it was reported to me, it wasn't a move to decrease discouse, but rather to promote more discourse, of an explicitly race-considering sort. When there are even potential racial issues lurking around, it is best to acknowledge them, and take some minimal measures to defuse them. I am also told that the leaders of the protest considered Prof. Brown's point, once they heard it, uncontroversial & unproblematic.

Let me ask, first of all, why in the hell anyone would think this man is black? I'm darker in pigment than he is and I haven't been to the beach in months.

Next, why in the hell would anyone who works in a faculty or staff position at IU have to belong to a "black" group of any kind? Is there really a problem with racism in the modern university that justifies this type of association?

Please.

KSOB has two black faculty members. In a school its size, it may indeed be enough to give pause and consider the current need for a Black caucus.

Adam,

Thanks for posting about this.

Many folks know I have little sympathy for the faculty in this episode, but I fail to see why the issue of race is even a point of discussion.

Either Herbert is doing a good job or he's not. Black, white, purple, the only consideration is his job performance.

Philosopher, I disagree with the notion that if someone is going to criticize a black university president, then black faculty must be brought into the discussion on the ground level. This can too easily be construed to mean that only blacks can criticize blacks, or, a white guy's criticism of a black guy is only valid if the criticism is reinforced by another black guy.

While I was only knee high during the civil rights movement, I thought the goal of MLK and his followers was to make color an irrelevant factor in American society. It seems that movement has been hijacked by people who insist on making color a topic of discussion even when it is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

I do not think the civil rights movement will be complete until we can criticize people of different skin tones without race being mentioned at all. And based upon the news coming out of Bloomington, we have a lot more work to do than I had thought.

Philosopher, I disagree with the notion that if someone is going to criticize a black university president, then black faculty must be brought into the discussion on the ground level. This can too easily be construed to mean that only blacks can criticize blacks, or, a white guy's criticism of a black guy is only valid if the criticism is reinforced by another black guy. I agree with this -- especially with the "must" in there -- and think it is important to avoid that construal. That having been said, I would happily assert that it would be a very good idea to bring in the black faculty in such a way. As I said in my comment on Paul's post above, it's not so much about granting legitimacy to the criticisms so much as keeping them from being clouded over with the lurking stereotype of racism. And it does fit that stereotype. Hence the value of precaution.

If IU had a very visibly evangelical president, who was attacked in similar terms by a mostly not-so-religious faculty, with charges like being too distracted with his own church to properly attend to the university's business, or eroding support of the sciences -- then it would be pragmatically, politically prudent to have some visibly evangelical faculty involved in those protests as well. Where the circumstances invite a hypothesis of bias, especially to those on the outside who aren't familiar with the particulars of the case, it's a good idea to preemptively defuse that hypothesis.

But I must disagree with you firmly in the way that you invoke MLK, and your intended meaning when you say, "I do not think the civil rights movement will be complete until we can criticize people of different skin tones without race being mentioned at all." I agree with the statement, but disagree with its usefulness as a premise in an argument whose conclusion is: so, we shouldn't talk about race. For we may only be able to reach that perfection of the civil rights movement by, indeed, talking a lot more about race than we already do. Compare: "I do not think that the cure for cancer will be complete until no more research is needed to find a cure." That would hardly be a good premise in an argument whose conclusion was: so, we should cut all funding for cancer research! In general, specifying a condition on the end-state of a process is no evidence that we should try to implement that condition directly as a part of pursuing that process.

(Just to be clear: when I said "I agree with this", I'm saying that I concur with Dogwood's disagreement with the proposition that the black faculty must be called upon in order to grant legitimacy to the criticisms of the president.)