Letter to the Editor

Hough's comments following the New York Times editorial deserve criticism for their slackness and casual wording, not for racism. Professors have an obligation to speak out on their convictions. What is odd is the reflexive condemnation of the comments by Michael Schoenfeld, a PR administrator, who apparently wants to suppress any comment that could lead to disagreement or mental discomfort to a reader. I'm trying to recall when universities became so timid, university administrators became intolerant of intelligent speech and the public voice of the university became indistinguishable from any corporation or government agency. Have a debate, Duke. Calm down. Talk. Don't let administrators tamp down on healthy dialogue. Consider that Hough's lack of articulateness may have been due to his being tired or just reasonably irritated by one more hand-wringing editorial from the Times.

Hough may have been a bit imprecise—"the blacks, the Asians"—as if the one word allows a dynamic summation of all with a particular skin color or geographical origin, but he does have a wall decorated with degrees and a distinguished career as an academic. His comments don't read like they're written by an unreflective bigot. Also, it's easy to imagine a feckless group of administrators huddled around a conference table telling Schoenfeld to lambast the comments as "noxious, offensive and [having] no place in civil discourse" like a scene straight out of The Scarlet Letter. It's sad that the vice presidents for this and that are so small minded and instinctively frightened of controversy. Hough's sin is one that we are all guilty of. We all generalize, often stupidly, using broad strokes as if they have meaning: Republicans, the middle-class, Duke students, Episcopalians, dog-owners, etc. First-year writing courses suggest more helpful approaches to analysis. Both Hough and Schoenfeld could benefit from a refresher.

John Briggs is a resident of Ann Arbor, Michigan, and is unaffiliated with Duke University.