Author’s Note: This is a difficult subject as it appears to be one of “reaction”. Do Black people possess the right to think freely and alter White narratives? Is this allowed? Can it be permitted? I am reminded of the endless police videos hosted on YouTube which record numerous interactions between White police officers and Black members of the public (often women). The suspects often behave hysterically whilst the White men chuckle and deploy their tasers and pistols, etc. White normalcy is upheld through the force of law – which for the white person who upholds it – thinks it possesses no colour. Of course, it is all about colour – if colour is extended to include class. The videos of police beating and insulting poor White people are not so popular when it comes to advertising. Today, in Trump’s America, Black people lamenting about White racism – are termed “racist” by the very White people they are complaining about. The average American is brain-washed into thinking that “they are free” – only to run into their own police – to finally realise just how “untrue” this assumption may be. This is a meta-narrative – or that reality that carries-on beneath the surface of ever changing events. Whereas the political right focuses on the surface events – the left tends to adhere to the machinations of underly narratives (strong in the belief that what is morally right will win in the end). At the moment, the right is controlling the surface perception and is winning the superficial battle for hearts and minds. Many leftists actually agree with some of the criticisms related to the surface events – and herein lies the problem. Who controls the narrative about slavery – the victims or the perpetuators? ACW (16.8.2026)
If you want to express your personal opinions without censure or opposition – then start an online blog that you control. Those who want to read your personal opinions can then log-on and read what you have to say. However, if you are a professional academic holding high office (tenure) – then this game of expression is played by very different rules. Academics of note and stature must ensure that their opinions a) do not contradict the political reality of the time, and b) are premised upon verifiable academic references that anyone can (in theory) check (and read) for themselves. Whereas blogs are generally free to read (or at least not very expensive to access) – tenured academics receive hundreds of thousand per year – together with a free house, car, healthcare, and pension. They are also permitted to generate income by writing books that can be sold directly to the general public.
Such academics might also acquire various types of sponsorship involving, sport, clothing, food, and travel, etc. Tenure is for your working life and you cannot be sacked (at lest in theory – but there are exceptions such as bringing the university into “disrepute”). When you retire – you continue to receive your full salary as a “pension”. In return for all this luxury and opulence – you are expected to think great thoughts and produce great pieces of work for the university that employs you. Obviously, due to the expense, not everyone is granted “tenure” – only the select few. All others are employed in a conventional manner and can be sacked at a moment’s notice. Therefore, universities are highly selective regarding as to whom they grant this privilege.
Those selected must be not only of a high academic standard in their chosen field – but they must also be conservative with a small “c” – supportive of the status quo, and possess no controversial opinions that might reflect badly upon the university. Whereas a Trotskyite might well be promoted (as they support capitalism and only deceptively exist on the left to manoeuvre workers to the right) – genuine Marxist-Leninists (or Maoists) will certainly not be promoted. Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky are two such “Trotskyite” individuals – but there are many others. The rule of thumb is that if a leading academic manages to get a job (and keep it) whilst describing themselves as being a “Marxist” – then they are obviously a status quo-supporting “Trotskyite”.
There are rare exceptions – such as Angela Davis and Grover Furr – but these are contradictions to the rule. The promotion of Black people (just because they are “Black”) by White people is a rather odd affair – as such a Black person is still under the control of the White community. Although there are great Black thinkers – those promoted simply for the colour of their skin – are not qualified to hold such a high office. Apparently, there have been at least four Black female Professors at Harvard in recent years exposed for being fantasists – who were indulged and empowered by the White community. The above video covers the case of “Kerri Greenidge” whose book – The Grimkes – was pulled from the shelves due to its content being deemed academically “untrue” (Greenidge was subsequently sacked from her role as Professor). Prior to this, without the establishment apparently checking its content – unprecedented praise was heaped upon this tome from all directions. After being exposed – the author responded by declaring all criticism of her work to be “racist”. Here is a rare example of a tenured Professor being “sacked“. I know standards have slipped over the years in our former colony of the US – but really?
Reference:
As the NYT is using a paywall – I provide most of the article below:
Tenured Prof. reported out for book phony sources etc.
By Neil Vigdor – July 10, 2026 [NY Times]
“A Decorated Historian’s Research Comes Under Fire
Kerri K. Greenidge appeared to lose her professorship at Tufts University after scholars began scrutinizing her 2022 book, “The Grimkes,” which is no longer listed on its publisher’s website.
Historians are questioning the validity of multiple works by the historian Kerri K. Greenidge, who is no longer employed by Tufts University.
A major publisher appeared to pull a prizewinning history book about a prominent South Carolina slaveholding family and its role in the abolitionist movement, after several scholars accused the author of misleading readers about details that were central to what reviewers had described as a groundbreaking narrative…..
But then things began to unravel for Kerri Greenidge, appearing to later cost her another book deal and her position as a tenured associate professor in the Department of Studies in Race, Colonialism, and Diaspora at Tufts University…..
In the email, Collins said the university became aware of the complaints that Greenidge’s book “contained multiple errors of fact and failed to give appropriate credit to the work of another” in December 2022, more than a year before Glenn published her critical review of the book.
“The university initiated a thorough peer review involving a panel of external scholars of American history which identified multiple errors of fact and citation,” Collins said…..”
SANGHA KOMMUNE (SSR) 