# Can someone explain why it is controversial that Obama hugged Derrick Bell? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [March 8, 2012, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-why-it-is-controversial-that-obama-hugged-derrick-bell/615140 "2012-03-08T12:26:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-why-it-is-controversial-that-obama-hugged-derrick-bell/615140/141 "2012-03-14T18:36:06Z")
Well, we’ve certainly run out of ways to shoot your arguments to hell; what else is there to do? ---
**Author:** ![JQPublic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ac8455/32.png) [@JQPublic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JQPublic)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-why-it-is-controversial-that-obama-hugged-derrick-bell/615140/142 "2012-03-14T19:45:01Z")
Derrick Bell had polarizing views. That can not be denied. You can agree with everything he says but they are still polarizing views. Polarizing views are controversial. The fact that the president embraced, figuratively and literally, a controversial figure makes it a controversial act. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-why-it-is-controversial-that-obama-hugged-derrick-bell/615140/143 "2012-03-14T19:50:48Z")
Ok, there’s one more way. Oh no! A black man in the 60’s had polarizing views. And then he hugged a student 20 years later. Impeach, I say! Fuck sakes, man. Pretty much everybody in the 60’s who had access to a microphone put forth polarizing views. This is pretty much the dumbest bout of manufactured outrage since Michelle Obama went to France. Give it up. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-why-it-is-controversial-that-obama-hugged-derrick-bell/615140/144 "2012-03-14T19:53:47Z")
> [@JQPublic](#): > > Derrick Bell had polarizing views. That can not be denied. […] The fact that the president embraced, figuratively and literally, a controversial figure makes it a controversial act. I think most of the people who are upset about this hug probably hadn’t heard of Bell before, much less at the time Obama hugged him 20 years ago. Doesn’t matter - it looks like this phony outrage didn’t resonate with the public, so the blogosphere has moved on. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-why-it-is-controversial-that-obama-hugged-derrick-bell/615140/145 "2012-03-14T20:00:06Z")
> [@JQPublic](#): > > Derrick Bell had polarizing views. That can not be denied. You can agree with everything he says but they are still polarizing views. > Polarizing views are controversial. > The fact that the president embraced, figuratively and literally, a controversial figure makes it a controversial act. It should not be controversial by **now.** Everybody already knows, everybody has known since 2008, that Obama spent his college years among 1960s academic radicals, among others. This clip adds nothing. ---
**Author:** ![JQPublic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ac8455/32.png) [@JQPublic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JQPublic)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-why-it-is-controversial-that-obama-hugged-derrick-bell/615140/146 "2012-03-14T20:14:51Z")
Now aren’t you all happy I revived this thread and gave you all some cannon fodder to tell each other how enlightened you are. I’m sorry I got it off the more important bush national guard service talk. I mean that was certainly timely conversation. ---
**Author:** ![joebuck20](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/74df32/32.png) [@joebuck20](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joebuck20)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-why-it-is-controversial-that-obama-hugged-derrick-bell/615140/147 "2012-03-14T20:29:00Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I think most of the people who are upset about this hug probably hadn’t heard of Bell before, much less at the time Obama hugged him 20 years ago. Doesn’t matter - it looks like this phony outrage didn’t resonate with the public, so the blogosphere has moved on. Does anyone here honestly believe that Sean Hannity or any of the other talking heads on Fox News are losing any sleep at night worrying about Obama’s onetime support of this guy, or otherwise give a shit about it other than using it as yet another excuse to say, “Oooooohhhh, look at the scary black man.” Please. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-why-it-is-controversial-that-obama-hugged-derrick-bell/615140/148 "2012-03-14T20:47:10Z")
I agree. As, apparently, I’m supposed to. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-why-it-is-controversial-that-obama-hugged-derrick-bell/615140/149 "2012-03-14T21:21:32Z")
Anyone else still waiting on this month’s Obama minion stipend? Third time in six months the check’s been late. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-why-it-is-controversial-that-obama-hugged-derrick-bell/615140/150 "2012-03-14T21:29:04Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > Anyone else still waiting on this month’s Obama minion stipend? Third time in six months the check’s been late. You should get direct deposit. The checks use the mail and the Republicans are trying to destroy the USPS. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-why-it-is-controversial-that-obama-hugged-derrick-bell/615140/151 "2012-03-14T23:30:02Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > You should get direct deposit. The checks use the mail and the Republicans are trying to destroy the USPS. Chin up, you know the second-term plans. In the United Socialist States of Obamastan, the mail (when it is permitted to arrive at all) will never be late. The Gestapost will have the necessary perusal and censorship of each item down to a very quick and efficient process, don’t worry. And any necessary follow-up action, also, down to a quick and efficient process. Hail Hussein! And watch your mail for this month’s Publisher’s Clearinghouse Sweepstakes! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2012, 9:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-why-it-is-controversial-that-obama-hugged-derrick-bell/615140/152 "2012-03-15T09:51:14Z")
> [@JQPublic](#): > > Now aren’t you all happy I revived this thread and gave you all some cannon fodder to tell each other how enlightened you are. And we appreciate you letting us use you as a basis for comparison. > [@](#): > > I’m sorry I got it off the more important bush national guard service talk. I mean that was certainly timely conversation. As opposed to Obama hugging Bell, which is far more topical. ---
**Author:** ![JQPublic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ac8455/32.png) [@JQPublic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JQPublic)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2012, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-why-it-is-controversial-that-obama-hugged-derrick-bell/615140/153 "2012-03-15T12:16:52Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > As opposed to Obama hugging Bell, which is far more topical. Isn’t this thread supposed to be about the hug? I don’t have time to play today but here’s some things you can clear up for me; Was Derrick Bell EVER considered a controversial figure? Not just to you but to society in general. I don’t see how the answer could that he was never controversial when back in the day The Beatles were considered controversial. I am basing this next question on the belief that you will answer honestly that he was considered controversial. If he was controversial then what makes him not controversial now? Yes I know he’s dead but his writings aren’t (or are they?) Is it because his views are so widely accepted that he’s now main stream? (my answer is no he’s still not mainstream) Or is he no longer controversial because him and his views are no longer relevant? (I believe what he said then is still relevant today) And if his veiws are irrelevant now would they have even been relevant then? Which leads us to, if he and his views are still relevant, and were at least at some point considered controversial would it not be fair to say that knowing that the president lead a protest in support of a controversial professor and at that time embraced not only the teacher but the teachings a bit controversial? Have fun and enjoy the day. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2012, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-why-it-is-controversial-that-obama-hugged-derrick-bell/615140/154 "2012-03-15T12:41:42Z")
> [@JQPublic](#): > > Isn’t this thread supposed to be about the hug? > > I don’t have time to play today but here’s some things you can clear up for me; > Was Derrick Bell EVER considered a controversial figure? Not just to you but to society in general. I don’t see how the answer could that he was never controversial when back in the day The Beatles were considered controversial. Wait a minute. I think you’re on to something. The Beatles. Didn’t Sir Paul McCartney perform at the White House? Jesus. This Obama character just surrounds himself with radicals, doesn’t he? ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2012, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-why-it-is-controversial-that-obama-hugged-derrick-bell/615140/155 "2012-03-15T13:17:03Z")
> [@JQPublic](#): > > Isn’t this thread supposed to be about the hug? Actually if you go back to the OP, it’s about the puzzlement about why certain right-wing talking heads are trying to make a big deal about a non-event. > [@](#): > > I don’t have time to play today but here’s some things you can clear up for me; > Was Derrick Bell EVER considered a controversial figure? Not just to you but to society in general. I don’t see how the answer could that he was never controversial when back in the day The Beatles were considered controversial. To be honest, I’d never heard of the guy before this thread. Going solely on the Wikipedia entry, he was a civil rights campaigner and academic who wrote about “the racial issues within the context of their economic and social and political dimensions from a legal standpoint.” In the sense that he conducted various protests in various manners throughout his life and thus actually took a stand on principle (his principles) against people with different principles, yes, he was controversial. If you’re trying to conflate “controversial” as “having done something bad”, however, I’m afraid the argument falls down very badly here. > [@](#): > > I am basing this next question on the belief that you will answer honestly that he was considered controversial. Well I’m glad to see that you’re not poisoning the well here by suggesting that if I don’t agree with you I’m being dishonest. I mean, that would be bad. Or at least controversial. > [@](#): > > If he was controversial then what makes him not controversial now? Yes I know he’s dead but his writings aren’t (or are they?) Is it because his views are so widely accepted that he’s now main stream? (my answer is no he’s still not mainstream)Or is he no longer controversial because him and his views are no longer relevant? (I believe what he said then is still relevant today) And if his veiws are irrelevant now would they have even been relevant then? Are those the only options? Discussions of diversity in hiring are entirely relevant today. I don’t know what you consider “mainstream” but certainly the discussion is hardly a niche one and is widespread enough that as long as you’re not defining “mainstream” as “universally agreed”, they are very mainstream. Mainstream enough to have been made into law in some cases. > [@](#): > > Which leads us to, if he and his views are still relevant, and were at least at some point considered controversial would it not be fair to say that knowing that the president lead a protest in support of a controversial professor and at that time embraced not only the teacher but the teachings a bit controversial? Um, no. Firstly, I see nothing to suggest that Obama “led” the protest; he introduced the guy at one but that was about it. Secondly, one can understand why Obama would side with someone who felt that there should be more minority faculty at Harvard (which, today, is _not_ a controversial position until you starting debating the nitty-gritty of how you think this should be achieved). In fact, calling for less discrimination is about as uncontroversial as you can get these days, about as controversial as the Beatles are now. So no, it’s definitely a non-issue. Add to that the fact that this was one minor event twenty years ago and it looks like the aforementioned talking heads are grasping at some very thin straws indeed. I mean, it’s not like he endorsed Joseph Kony. If he’d done that, then I’d feel that Hannity and co would be fully justified in bringing this issue to the fore, just like they’re doing with [this guy’s](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/08/limbaugh-defended-joseph-kony_n_1332477.html)endorsement of Kony. We can see how _that_ story has been plastered all over the media, right? Right? Oh well…maybe it’s not controversial enough. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2012, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-why-it-is-controversial-that-obama-hugged-derrick-bell/615140/156 "2012-03-15T14:01:25Z")
> [@JQPublic](#): > > If he was controversial then what makes him not controversial now? Yes I know he’s dead but his writings aren’t (or are they?) Is it because his views are so widely accepted that he’s now main stream? (my answer is no he’s still not mainstream) Or is he no longer controversial because him and his views are no longer relevant? (I believe what he said then is still relevant today) And if his veiws are irrelevant now would they have even been relevant then? [Wiki:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derrick_Bell#Scholarship) > [@](#): > > Bell is arguably the most influential source of thought critical of traditional civil rights discourse. Bell’s critique represented a challenge to the dominant liberal and conservative position on civil rights, race and the law. He employed three major arguments in his analyses of racial patterns in American law: constitutional contradiction, the interest convergence principle, and the price of racial remedies. His book Race, Racism and American Law, now in its sixth edition, has been continually in print since 1973 and is considered a classic in the field. > > Bell continued writing about critical race theory after accepting a teaching position at Harvard University. Much of his legal scholarship was influenced by his experience both as a black man and as a civil rights attorney. Writing in a narrative style, Bell contributed to the intellectual discussions on race. According to Bell, his purpose in writing was to examine the racial issues within the context of their economic and social and political dimensions from a legal standpoint. > > For instance, in The Constitutional Contradiction, Bell argued that the framers of the Constitution chose the rewards of property over justice. With regard to the interest convergence, he maintains that “whites will promote racial advances for blacks only when they also promote white self-interest.” Finally, in The Price of Racial Remedies, Bell argues that whites will not support civil rights policies that may threaten white social status. > > His 2002 book, Ethical Ambition, encourages a life of ethical behavior, including “a good job well done, giving credit to others, standing up for what you believe in, voluntarily returning lost valuables, choosing what feels right over what might feel good right now”.[9] Answer: No, not controversial; that would require a lot more people having **heard** of these theories. Not even within the legal profession is Bell “controversial,” I can assure you. (Legal academia might still remember him, that’s a different sphere.) ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2012, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-why-it-is-controversial-that-obama-hugged-derrick-bell/615140/157 "2012-03-15T14:50:02Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Answer: No, not controversial; that would require a lot more people having **heard** of these theories. Not even within the legal profession is Bell “controversial,” I can assure you. (Legal academia might still remember him, that’s a different sphere.) On the other hand you can see why someone like Sean Hannity might find the concepts of “a good job well done, giving credit to others, standing up for what you believe in, voluntarily returning lost valuables, choosing what feels right over what might feel good right now” controversial. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2012, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-why-it-is-controversial-that-obama-hugged-derrick-bell/615140/158 "2012-03-15T15:37:21Z")
> [@JQPublic](#): > > Was Derrick Bell EVER considered a controversial figure? Among people who wrote about race in academic circles? I’m sure. For the other 99.99 percent of the population, on the other hand… ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2012, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-why-it-is-controversial-that-obama-hugged-derrick-bell/615140/159 "2012-03-15T15:50:11Z")
I doubt Bell was even close to being the most controversial faculty member at Harvard at the time. He certainly would not have stood out at my college or law school. I’m not really a hugger, but I would have been proud to shake his hand, and I would have loved to have an opportunity to discuss the great issues of the day with him. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2012, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-why-it-is-controversial-that-obama-hugged-derrick-bell/615140/160 "2012-03-15T16:03:55Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > I doubt Bell was even close to being the most controversial faculty member at Harvard at the time. I don’t think he was at Harvard at the same time as Cornell West, but there’s one “competitor,” anyway. And Larry Summers has had his controversial moments, too. Like I said earlier, Republicans seem to have moved on from this controversy, perhaps because Breitbart died suddenly and is not around to overhype it. In any case the public doesn’t seem to care much about Derrick Bell. However I guess conservatives should be commended for their cleverness: notice how they didn’t say anything about Bell until after he was dead and couldn’t defend himself? I don’t think that was a coincidence. PBS aired some footage from Obama’s speech all the way back in 2008 and it wasn’t a secret that Bell was on the Harvard faculty while Obama was a graduate student. It’s just as well that this turned into little ado about nothing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-why-it-is-controversial-that-obama-hugged-derrick-bell/615140.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-why-it-is-controversial-that-obama-hugged-derrick-bell/615140.md?page=9)