Dyson's response

To the Editor:

Andrew Geier's remarks about my recent appearance in The New York Times Magazine ("Dyson's remarks," The Daily Pennsylvanian, 3/30/05) appear to be driven by more than substantive intellectual disagreement. Indeed, his ad hominem attack sullies the reasoned argument one expects in a university community.

Mr. Geier is correct to respond negatively to the view imputed to me in the Times that poor black folk have no choice in committing acts of murder or theft. Such a view is morally damaging and is one I don't hold. Ms. Solomon interviewed me for more than 30 minutes and then edited my remarks. When she called me with her edits about poor black folk -- and about Cosby's philanthropy, which I didn't cavalierly dismiss, but acknowledged as generous, though not the point of my book -- I strenuously objected to her mischaracterization of my remarks. She assured me they would be recorded, but alas, they weren't. I understand the heat I'm getting.

What is curious, even corrosive, is Mr. Geier's failed attempts at psychoanalysis (calling me "angry"), cognitive theory (calling me "simple") and mind-reading (he says that I believe that to be an authentic member of the black community, "one must have close ties to crime.") None of his claims are in the least empirical and can't even be judged to be anecdotal from Mr. Geier's personal experience with me. Hence, they appear to be projections of his distorted world view of black identity.

Finally, Mr. Geier appears to be offended by my "expensive suit and very expensive shoes." My new book on Cosby's attack on poor blacks details how whites a century ago deeply resented well-dressed black folk because they symbolized the destruction of racial inequality and embodied an "uppity" stance. I don't claim to know Mr. Geier or his motivations, but if the shoe fits, wear it!

Michael Eric Dyson

The author is a professor of Afro-American and Religious Studies

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.