If you haven't heard, Naomi Schaefer Riley has been sacked by The Chronicle for Higher Education for her two, trolling blog posts about the elimination of black studies in universities. But that hasn't stopped some of her defenders from taking various routes to defend her racist posts

So, just as we did with our guide on how to not sound racist when talking about black studies, here's our guide to defending Ms. Schaefer Riley: 

The Defense: She's Married to a Black Man and Has Bi-racial Children

Thought: "You can't write racist things about black people and the black experience if you're married to a black man."

Employed by: Reason contributing editor and frequent WSJ opinion contributor Michael Moynihan (Schaefer Riley is a former WSJ editor); Rod Dreher at the American Conservative,  Our Commenters


The Defense: Her Argument Is Stupid, May Be a Little Racist, But Let's "Set Things Straight"

Thought: "Let's have a discussion about how incorrect her views are, because we're above name-calling. (OMG!OMG! Look at those pageviews!)"

Employed by: Chronicle editor Liz McMillen

Many of you have asked The Chronicle to take down Naomi Schaefer Riley’s recent posting, “The Most Persuasive Case for Eliminating Black Studies? Just Read the Dissertations.” I urge readers instead to view this posting as an opportunity—to debate Riley’s views, challenge her, set things straight as you see fit. Take a moment to read The Chronicle’s front-page story about the future of black studies, written by Chronicle reporter Stacey Patton and weigh in.


The Defense: Her Argument Is Stupid, May Be a Little Racist But I'll Set Things Straight

Thought: "Let's have a discussion (on my post)  about how incorrect her views are, because we're above name-calling. (OMG!OMG! Look at those pageviews! They could be mine!)"

Employed by: Chronicle writer Mark Bauerlein:

The disproportionate reaction, the hyper-emotional tenor, the casting of her post as “hate speech,” and so on, go well beyond refutation. Riley has denied the intellectual viability of black studies, but the respondents haven’t replied by proving the opposite. They have launched an attack of their own, a personal one.


The Defense: She's Vile, But She Shouldn't Be Fired Fired

Thought: "There's got to be something about free speech or the First Amendment right?"

Employed by: Chronicle writer Laurie Essig

"... I am not sure The Chronicle should fire someone because they are nearly universally reviled. There are all sorts of people who believe I should be fired from The Chronicle‘s Brainstorm blog and some of them go so far as to call my institution and suggest I be fired from there as well. Which leads me to believe that editorial decisions about who stays and who goes should not really be in response to public pressure since no unpopular views would ever be published, at least not for long."