De Russy’s comments continue to draw ire

The strong opposition by UUP members to SUNY Trustee Candace de Russy’s remarks about black studies programs continues, with UUPers vehemently rejecting de Russy’s characterization of such disciplines as “flabby, feel-good programs that carry anti-American bias.”

UUP members have spoken out against de Russy through letters to the editor, commentaries in chapter newsletters and memos circulated at several campuses. The strength of the response is a measure of the outrage de Russy provoked for her unapologetic — and, several UUPers said, uninformed — opinions.

“She implied that ‘blacks’ are not ‘American.’ That statement is clearly racist,” said Steven Jonas, a UUPer and a professor of preventive medicine at Stony Brook HSC.

De Russy singled out black studies departments at Stony Brook for particular criticism in her recent remarks. She also erroneously targeted the department at SUNY Old Westbury; Old Westbury does not have a black studies department. That error was characteristic of de Russy’s reckless, sensationalized, shoot-from-the-hip style, her critics said.

“Candace de Russy is engaging in academic racial profiling,” said UUPer William McAdoo, chair of Stony Brook’s Africana studies department. “Equally revealing is her spurious attack on black studies at the College of Old Westbury, which does not even have a black studies department. This speaks volumes about de Russy’s research skills and intellectual honesty, which are indeed ‘lax.’ She has abused her position, power and the trust of the citizens of the state of New York, and should resign or she should be removed.”

Delegates to the union’s 2002 Winter Delegate Assembly directed the union to seek de Russy’s immediate removal from the SUNY Board of Trustees, and adopted a resolution condemning her remarks.

The controversy started in February, when a Newsday reporter interviewed de Russy for an article about the national debate on the merits of black studies programs. In addition to paraphrasing de Russy’s remark about “flabby, feel-good programs,” the article quoted her as saying that such programs “became therapeutic in nature, and the goal became consciousness raising as opposed to conveying solid scholarship.”

In subsequent defense of her remarks, de Russy also criticized women’s studies programs as “radical, leftist academics.”

UUP President William Scheuerman led the cry against de Russy, noting that the union supports her right to free speech as a private citizen, but deplores her use of her trusteeship for a personal tirade.

“Candace de Russy’s crusade against non-Western cultures and history is just a smokescreen for her biased and uninformed personal views,” said Scheuerman in a response to de Russy’s appearance on Fox News’ “O’Reilly Factor” last month.

Other UUPers echoed Scheuerman’s statement.

“She just doesn’t get it!” UUP chapter presidents John Schmidt and Edward Drummond of SUNY Stony Brook and Stony Brook HSC, respectively, wrote in a letter to Newsday. “Private citizen de Russy can say anything she wants; SUNY Trustee de Russy represents the University and its policies and should speak and act accordingly — and responsibly.”

Many of Western civilization’s great philosophers and authors have explored race and gender, noted Mary Rawlinson, a UUPer and chair of the women’s studies program at SUNY Stony Brook.

“The charge that black studies and women’s studies are ‘anti-American’ is particularly loathsome. Does de Russy know so little of the founding documents and history of this country that she views questioning our leaders, holding them accountable and even dissenting from their views as ‘anti-American?’” Rawlinson wrote in her reaction to de Russy.

Vicki Janik, a UUP delegate from SUNY Farmingdale, decried de Russy’s “blatant pandering to right-wing ideologues.” Janik chairs the union’s statewide Women’s Rights & Concerns Committee.

It is troubling, Janik added, “that an individual in so lofty and important a position formulates a published argument with unsupported generalizations, hyperbole, name-calling, misleading use of scholarly support, inaccurate terminology, non-sequiturs and unattributed quotations.”

— Darryl McGrath