In an anonymous letter, students complained that "Dr. Goldberg used data sets, cartoons, and lectures in order to vent his own political, ideological, and personal frustrations (with affirmative action, for example) on students in the classroom. The obvious target for these attacks were students of color and women." The letter objected to the cartoon as a sexist portrayal of women's mathematical abilities, saying "His use of this cartoon, particularly in conjunction with derogatory comments, constitutes not a form of communication (i.e., giving information), but rather a political act for which he is accountable."
The students did not claim, however, that the statistical examples used by Goldberg were inaccurate. Rusty Bush, who attended the class, argued that in-class examples, although true, may be racist and sexist "if they lack sensitivity and analytical rigor." For example, he says, while Goldberg's statistics on male vs. female pay may be accurate, they fail to consider the institutional sexism inherent in the other factors, such as education, that partially account for the income discrepancies.
Although Goldberg was charged with creating a hostile atmosphere for women and people of color in his class, nobody has suggested that he treats these students any differently. Sociology graduate student Patrick Ball wrote to The University Record: "Legal scholar Isaac Balbus points out that if citizens are fundamentally unequal in some respect, then perfectly due process will perfectly fairly reproduce that inequality. From my understanding of the character of Sociology 510, this is what Prof. Goldberg has done... If students come from traditionally excluded groups, Prof. Goldberg's technique might easily be felt as an academic version of social exclusion, a statistically disguised version of the hate they overcame to arrive here." Not only is equal treatment of all students no defense against charges of racism and sexism, it may actually confirm these accusations.
After fighting attempts to oust him from the faculty altogether, Goldberg finally got his sentence reduced. For students who object to Goldberg's teaching style, he cannot teach any required courses for which there is not another instructor available.
Another professor, Reynolds Farley, suspended his course at the University of Michigan on the history of race relations after examples he used in class to demonstrate the history of racial conflict—a description of Malcolm X that called him a "pimp" and quotations by a nativist senator deriding Mexicans as lazy—offended his students and led to charges of racism. Farley concluded that he could no longer teach the course in such a politicized environment. Asked if he is ready to resume teaching race relations, a subject on which he is considered to be a leading authority, he responded, "After what happened to David Goldberg, I'm not going to petition to return."