La Lubu

Esoterica: blackamazon: lubiddu: Hey, Naomi Schaefer Riley, your racism is...

lubiddu:

blackamazon:

lubiddu:

Hey, Naomi Schaefer Riley, your racism is showing.

karnythia:

kvetchingyenta:

You’ll have to forgive the lateness but I just got around to reading The Chronicle’s recent piece on the young guns of black studies. If ever there were a case for…

No, seriously….I’d really like an answer from the Chronicle on why little Naomi’s opinion piece is considered valuable and important enough to present to the public, while the voices of the academics she attacks are not. This bitch has nothing to say about the quality of their work, only that she doesn’t like their line of inquiry. She doesn’t like the direction of their curiosity and focus, and thus dismisses their work outright without even examining it. Because she doesn’t like their discipline to begin with. Because it doesn’t center *her*. Why is her opinion considered any more important than any other ol’ racist jagoff? Because she has the right pedigree? She’s “somebody”?

Looks like Naomi Shitstain Riley’s academic rigor didn’t extend past her bachelor’s degree. Tell me again what qualifies her to determine what is and is not worthy of a doctoral dissertation? Why the Chronicle felt the need for her to get her digs in by referring to Keeanga Yamahtta Taylor, a prolific socialist writer, as “Ms. Taylor”, because pretty soon her formal address will be DOCTOR Taylor?!

(via blackamazon)