Support NeoGAF

[EdibleKnife]

What class does she teach?

Mass Communications

 

[Mumei]

so white people should just give their money away to minorities?

Edit: i'm not trying to mock anyone or w/e, just don't understand by what 'own up' is supposed to mean by your standards

I think "acknowledge as true" would probably work. I don't like the phrase "own up" because it seems to imply some sort of personal guilt in the matter, but I don't know that he intended it to come across that way.

I mean, i'm pretty sure most of the sensible ones aren't going YAY RACISM! WE ENSLAVED THE MOST RACES! MAX SCORE or anything like that

This is true; most people aren't doing this. He's not talking about this, though. He is referring to a phenomenon we refer to as 'color-blind racism.' This is the dominant racial ideology today, and has largely replaced 'biological' racism. In older styles of biological racism, explanations for the inferiority of non-white racisms were rooted in pseudo-scientific biological explanations. Colorblindness replaced this construction with a new "complex discourse of racialized stories, myths, tropes, arguments, and so forth" that are the source of the four primary frames (abstract liberalism, naturalization, cultural racism, and minimization of racism) of arguments that are used to explain racial phenomena without invoking race.

These include ideas such as "nothing should be forced on people" [liberalism] in discussions about school or residential integration; the idea that individual choices are the reason for segregation [naturalization] and therefore group-based models are wrong despite minorities being discriminated against as a class and whites consequently advantaged as a result, and the fact that demanding individual treatment can only result in benefiting members of the dominant group; the idea that only exceptional events count as racism or the idea that racism has a limited impact on the daily lives of non-whites [minimization].

It also includes stock phrases such as "I am not prejudiced but..." or "Some of my best friends are ... " or evasions such as "I am not black, so I don't know" (e.g., used to preface a statement before one indicates that despite not being black or having any first-hand information, the person believes that it is "less than it used to be" or "exaggerated") or "Yes and no" prefacing statements that are entirely in support of one side.

So I read the assertion that white people should "own up" to the fact of racial inequality as an assertion that white people should acknowledge that we have not, in fact, 'moved past' race, that race is still an important factor in determining a persons' life chances, and the inequality we see between whites and non-whites isn't a matter of "cultures of poverty" or "poor personal choices," but the inevitable effects of structural racism.

He might not mean it that way, but that's how I would intend it.

 

[gohepcat]

I don't think that white people should feel guilty about anything, at the very least. What does "owning up" mean specifically?

I would assume simply acknowledging it exists would be nice.

 

[Newline]

I don't think most white people are aware of the so called concept of white privilege or even how casual racism is still racism.

I mean, in GAF, sure, you have almost everyone who acknowledge white privilege, but in the real world? Yeah, good luck with that.

A lot of western governments are accepting of this, I know in Canada there are myriads of schemes put in place for citizens with first nations ancestors. They acknowledge that they took from these people under immoral circumstances and thus not dealing with this issue would pretty much be the same as our more civilised society accepting these issues as fine. I mean how couldn't it?

Unfortunately the society that is supposed to be more civilised than hundreds of years ago can't actually acknowledge it themselves, even with such schemes in place from their government. Hence you get racism deniers and affirmative action objectors.

 

[dapperbandit]

"White guilt" is just the recognition of white privilege by white people.

White people should not feel guilty for what their precursors did, or apologize for historical atrocities

What? Privilege and Guilt in this context are different things, something you seem to simultaneously agree/disagree with.

As for the rest of your post, this is why I consider white privilege a dead end.

The rest of your post...

we need to recognize what we hold a position of almost inalienable privilege, and that we need to take action to ensure that, in the long run, all Americans (and perhaps all people) have access to this privilege

...can be summed up as:

1) White people need to recognise social priveleges
2) ???
3) A fair and just society for all

Acknowledging that you are better off than others accomplishes absolutely nothing. It won't fix institutional racism, it won't level the playing field, it won't address generalised social prejudice that leads an employer to not hire your "Tyrone Brown" over your "John Smith".

It's a thin bandaid for a haemorrhage.

 

[Air]

Well I actually agree with you. I didn't want to expand on it because I'm afraid people will take me the wrong way, but I don't think black and white really mean the same thing in a racial/cultural context. To me, "black" equates to African American culture as much as it does any racial undertone. On the other hand, "white" does not mean Caucasian American culture, and only refers to race.

The reason for this is the way black people v caucasians came to the US. Black people were forcefully brought as slaves from disparate parts of Africa and a new culture and identity was forced upon them. An individual black person, in the US, is not likely to be able to trace his lineage to a specific place in Africa. On the other hand, white people can. They know exactly where the came from.

So, to me, black can mean African American culture. But white never mean Caucasian American culture.

Now to expand on this, I think this bad for African Americans in the long run. I know "African American" has a somewhat negative connotation, and "Caucasian American" or "European American" is considered silly, but I actually think they are far superior terms than black or white. In part, because they are more accurate, but also because - going back to my original sentiment - they make the identity about culture instead of physical characteristics.

Ah, ok. I see your point than.

I would assume simply acknowledging it exists would be nice.

This deals with the probability of a white person finding success in opposition to a minority. White people tend to have far fewer barriers to success than black or certain Latinos or whatever. I would imagine that 'owning up' would mean being able to see that the road you are on is not as difficult as minorities.

 

[TheRagnCajun]

"White guilt" is just the recognition of white privilege by white people. White people should not feel guilty for what their precursors did, or apologize for historical atrocities, but we need to recognize what we hold a position of almost inalienable privilege, and that we need to take action to ensure that, in the long run, all Americans (and perhaps all people) have access to this privilege.

The privilege that a white american statistically enjoys over a black american pales in comparison to the privilege that any american enjoys over a somalian, or hatian, or romanian, or peruvian, or most of the rest of the world for that matter. Maybe instead it being 'white guilt' it ought to be 'first world nation guilt' and then together we can takle some of the greatest inequalities in our world.

 

[siddhu33]

In an American History class in college, I had one black professor who would divert almost every subject he talked about to an issue of race. He told us that in his time living in upstate New York, he was pulled over while driving 45 times for "driving while black." As a white male, I found it kind of insensitive that he was making sweeping anecdotal generalizations about race so casually in front of a class of about thirty. It's kind of disgusting how this still exists in academia, especially coming from a top professor at a top college in the country.

Well the entirety of US history is full of racism. It is kinda how they built the entire country. Love the Dave Chapelle quote on it: "america was founded by a bunch of slave owners who wanted to be free".

The privilege that a white american statistically enjoys over a black american pales in comparison to the privilege that any american enjoys over a somalian, or hatian, or romanian, or peruvian, or most of the rest of the world for that matter. Maybe instead it being 'white guilt' it ought to be 'first world nation guilt' and then together we can takle some of the greatest inequalities in our world.

Why cannot both sets of inequality be dealt with simultaneously? There are enough people to work on both.

 

[pants]

Mass Communications

I had to wiki this, had no idea it was a thing.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

I would assume simply acknowledging it exists would be nice.

I can see the reluctance, it's like going up to a guy who's celebrating having won an arse-kicking contest and pointing out that half of the other competitors were missing a leg.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

I think you're referring to white privelage.

White Guilt is something different and is a concept I find very problematic. Because on the one hand, people are reminded "it is meaningless to take pride in the accomplishments of your own race that had nothing to do with you" but at the same time, white people are encouraged to feel shame and guilt, the reverse of pride, over actions of their own race they had nothing to do with.

With White Privelage I can understand the reasoning, but I still think it's a dead end. Where does it take us? To be aware in your dealings and interactions with others that by virtue of being born white, middle class perhaps and so on, you are more fortunate and you should remain aware of this. Great. But how does it help anybody? Perhaps I'm ill informed but I don't see any practical applications.

Well, these sort of deep-seated issues are difficult to fix. But having said that, to me the whole goal of understanding concepts like privilege isn't to undermine any particular person or group's achievements by reminding them (in this case white people) that they have it better at an institutional level. My understanding of discussing the phenomenon is that empathy is the main goal. Have you ever had a friend or family member go on a rant about bootstraps wherein the message conveyed is that black people (for instance) are lazy and ignorant and that the reason why they reside in the ghetto is because they'd rather collect their welfare checks and speak their ebonics instead of working hard like they did? And keep in mind, I'm not trying to be funny by employing hyperbole with that preceding sentence, as I've actually heard rhetoric like than many, many times in my life.

Now, first of all, it's important to note that this is sweeping generalization is grossly unfair to begin with. However, just for the sake of the argument you might grant that these observations may be more relevant than some of us would like to believe given that we're tree-hugging social liberals that think everyone's a winner. OK, so let's assume that some in dire straits don't seem to be doing themselves any favors. Why do we think that is?

That's where the concept of privilege comes into play. Before writing off a whole swath of people, it's beneficial to understand how and why we got to where we are. If I'm entirely honest with myself, for instance, maybe it's worth considering that perhaps I'm not the self-made man I might desire to give myself credit for being. After all, though I didn't grow up wealthy by any stretch of the imagination, I did have parents that paid for private schools and a large part of my college tuition. Further, school came relatively easy for me. I never dealt with gangs. The "bad crowd" I was around was just people drinking and smoking weed at parties in high school.

Now, that doesn't mean I shouldn't take pride in terms of my accomplishments. But before looking down on those financially beneath me, understanding what privilege is does allow me to take a different angle as opposed to crying out that the past is behind us and that those less fortunate than myself just need to get off their lazy asses and work harder.

 

[trixx]

In an American History class in college, I had one black professor who would divert almost every subject he talked about to an issue of race. He told us that in his time living in upstate New York, he was pulled over while driving 45 times for "driving while black." As a white male, I found it kind of insensitive that he was making sweeping anecdotal generalizations about race so casually in front of a class of about thirty. It's kind of disgusting how this still exists in academia, especially coming from a top professor at a top college in the country.

I guess it depends. From what you say it sounds excessive but i do think it is important to identify various cultural impacts on society. For me throughout school i didn't really learn about contributions from other cultures except when it was black history month and it was always the same thing MLK, Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, Slavery wasn't that bad. Only time where it was different was when I had a black teacher that went more in depth.

Other than that, tne only other history teacher that taught the impact of other cultures was my grade 10 history teacher who was white and went in depth on asian communities in Canada and contribution to candian railway, blacks in canadian army, experiences faced amongst native the native community as well as racism and sexism in gerneral. The only history class i actually liked.

 

[Enron]

Students challenging a professor can be disruptive to the lesson, but it's also sort of expected in a college classroom. I've sat through classes where students argued with the teacher about the material. Professor should be able to handle that, not give a "well if you have a problem with it shut up and go file a complaint with legal" (Come at me, bro). College was 100% correct in reprimanding her, and she's 100% wrong with filing a discrimination suit if its based solely on that 1 event.

 

[Air]

I can see the reluctance, it's like going up to a guy who's celebrating having won an arse-kicking contest and pointing out that half of the other competitors were missing a leg.

It only sucks if pride is an issue. If you can see things outside of your perspective and take in as much information as you can to see how you ended up being who you are today, you can admit whether or not you are privileged with honesty. Me for example, even though I am black, I rarely have had it be a problem for me, and am fortunate enough to have parents who did their best to bring me a middle class lifestyle. I have it much easier than other blacks but slightly more difficult to some whites.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Acknowledging that you are better off than others accomplishes absolutely nothing. It won't fix institutional racism, it won't level the playing field, it won't address generalised social prejudice.

I don't think you understand the value of privilege as a social construct. Privilege isn't about solving the problem, it is about making people away that their own thought processes are shaped by who they are and so deeply-held internally felt assumptions might shape the way they respond to claims of discrimination, unequal treatment, or lessened opportunity.

For example if a middle class suburbanite makes the argument "I have no idea why so many black urban kids are drawn into gang membership. They should just join a club or play with good kids in their neighborhood", then they are making assumptions about the opportunities available to urban kids that are not correct. It's true that you could refute this by saying "Well, often times whole areas are faced with decay, there's a lack of municipal services--encouraged largely by suburbanites who vote down tax revenues needed to pay for these services--to say nothing of the problem of broken homes and male role models being in jail thanks largely to the war on drugs". And then this goes back and forth "Hey I don't necessarily agree with drug laws but if you do the crime you do the time", which of course is based on an assumption that the laws are being enforced in an even-handed way, that access to legal counsel is comparable for all people if they are caught, that sentencing is fair, that all people are 100% in control of all of their actions and there are no social pressures to perpetuate crime based on the opportunities available to people. "Well sure I know it's tough when you have fewer opportunities but if you work extra hard you'll get ahead and be able to leave that stuff behind, just look at <xyz person who succeeded>. Also I have friends who come from homes with rough parenting situations and they turned out well."

Basically, when the argument someone is making is a series of assumptions about what humans can do apparently divorced from any kind of understanding of how social context shapes them, that is privilege. You can demonstrate the arguments are wrong with evidence and people absolutely do, using evidence. But privilege is also a useful theoretical construct to remind someone that they internalize so many assumptions about how things operate. It's about saying "Instead of just confidently declaring you've got this figured out, maybe stop to listen to claims about inequity in good faith and try to be aware of what assumptions you have that cause you to doubt the claims of inequity because they don't apply to you."

Privilege doesn't "solve" inequality, it's a concept that we hope people learn to apply when they react to claims of inequality so that they themselves are more likely to understand the source of the claim and thus more willing to cooperate to fix them.

 

[TheRagnCajun]

Why cannot both sets of inequality be dealt with simultaneously? There are enough people to work on both.

It can, and should. Maybe it just strikes me as a little bit narrow-minded to focus on 'white guilt' in american society because of history, when there are greater inequalities out there that american society as a whole is responsible for (black and white), and its happening right now. Maybe we're missing the plot a little bit here.

 

[Timedog]

so white people should just give their money away to minorities?

Yes. Black people gave up their both generational wealth and social standing, both of which lead to lower income today. Regardless of whether or not white people engage/d in the persecution of blacks, they benefit from it right now, socially and monetarily(which translates into other things like power and influence). That's the monetary face of white privilege. Yes, take away some of the unearned benefits.

Although some form of AA is better than money, IMO.

 

[Jackben]

Dapper, recognizing white priviledge is a piece of the puzzle. As Kinitari mentions it's not meant to be wielded as a weapon. But I do believe that it is an important part of the endgame. It's easy enough to think it's all common knowledge but I think you would be surprised (or not) to find a lot of people deny or do no recognize it. It's part of overall efforts to empathize with your fellow man and come to terms with the reality of our current situation.

 

[Valhelm]

again, i'm pretty sure most white people realize that, even my friend, who's a blue eyed blonde, acknowledges that, but that doesn't make her inherently a bad human being ..
We shouldn't try bringing other people down, but bringing the people who are left down upwards, progress society together and remember and learn from the past as not to repeat it ..
Some people say "i don't see color", which is horseshit, my philosphy is that i see color, but I choose not to give a fuck about it and treat people like .... humans i suppose, valuing them by their personality not by their color ...

there's my naive simplistic hope of the world

It's awesome that you don't take race into account when judging people, and a lot of people cannot attest to that, but much more important than personal racism is institutional racism.

Black people are no longer being lynched or murdered on the regular, and when a Black person is killed in a situation that may have racial implications, it's national news. But Black people, and many other ethnic minorities, are systematically oppressed by the governments of the United States and the rest of the developed world.

Because American media is so centered on white people, many Black children grow up thinking that they are somehow inferior or different. While I doubt many Black adults actively think that white people are better, the underlying racism of American society encourages people of color to feel inferior. Think how discouraging it would be, if you're an African American student looking to go into politics, to learn that there are no Black people in the US senate.

Huge gains have been made in promoting minorities in the US and abroad, but there's so much progress left to be made.

 

[Mesousa]

Yes. Black people gave up their both generational wealth and social standing, both of which lead to lower income today. Regardless of whether or not white people engage/d in the persecution of blacks, they benefit from it right now, socially and monetarily(which translates into other things like power and influence). That's the monetary face of white privilege. Yes, take away some of the unearned benefits.

Although some form of AA is better than money, IMO.

What could be better than money?

 

[Newline]

It can, and should. Maybe it just strikes me as a little bit narrow-minded to focus on 'white guilt' in american society because of history, when there are greater inequalities out there that american society as a whole is responsible for (black and white), and its happening right now. Maybe we're missing the plot a little bit here.

If a nation cant get a handle of it's own smaller problems how is it expected to deal with other nations.

 

[Omegasquash]

The students then filed a complaint, and Gibney was formally reprimanded by the school’s vice president of academic affairs for creating a ”hostile learning environment” for trying to educate her students about the existence and operations of structural racism.

Now, something seems wrong here. Creating a hostile learning environment for trying to educate her students about the existence and operations of structural racism, eh?

She was right to file the suit.

 

[siddhu33]

It can, and should. Maybe it just strikes me as a little bit narrow-minded to focus on 'white guilt' in american society because of history, when there are greater inequalities out there that american society as a whole is responsible for (black and white), and its happening right now. Maybe we're missing the plot a little bit here.

I understand what you mean, but we're just focusing on what you call 'white guilt' due to the thread being about 'white guilt'.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Students challenging a professor can be disruptive to the lesson, but it's also sort of expected in a college classroom. I've sat through classes where students argued with the teacher about the material. Professor should be able to handle that, not give a "well if you have a problem with it shut up and go file a complaint with legal" (Come at me, bro). College was 100% correct in reprimanding her, and she's 100% wrong with filing a discrimination suit if its based solely on that 1 event.

Students should challenge a professor, absolutely, but typically they should not challenge the professor on the basis that they do not agree that something should be taught. For example, if a professor adopts a rat-choice frame, then a student with a more critical approach might critique the use of rat-choice, and rat-choice's weaknesses as an approach. Of course it's pretty unlikely the student has the theoretical grounding to do that. But yes, hypothetically, challenging that is not a problem. But if it's a research methods class and a student says "I don't agree with rational choice so you shouldn't teach it", that's simply disruptive. Whether you agree with Marx or not, agree with Durkheim or not, agree with radical feminism or not, agree with realist IR or not--these are all things that are important to teach an awareness of in the subjects in question. You don't get to opt out of a question on Marx's reification in a classical social theory because you think communism is bullshit. You don't get to opt out of a question on US Cold War FP doctrine because you don't like America. You don't get to opt out of a question on how religious groups have shaped public policy on HIV because you agree that HIV is a punishment from God.

I remember grading term papers once. One of the assigned topics asked students to explain the extraordinary success of one of the political parties in my country--this particular party is one of the most consistently successful parties in any western democracy ever. So the spirit of the paper is discuss how the party successfully exploited relevant lines of political cleavage in my country to come up with a winning coalition, as well as how the electoral design prioritized certain regions of the country, as well as how minor parties siphoned votes from their main rival party and the FPTP system thus benefited them (Duverger's law, basically). The point of the paper is not to say "I agree with this party and think they're the best and I voted for them". Naturally, we had a student who was offended by the suggestion that a party he hated was successful, and so without consulting anyone he wrote a paper about how the party sucked and their main opponents are way better. This was not a student disagreeing with the material, this was a student totally failing to do what was required because personal myopia prevented him from learning.

This would be like if a US Political Science course asked students to investigate how Obama was elected on the basis of a demographic coalition that previously was never tapped to elect a president--and someone wrote a paper about how Obama is a socialist and the Republicans are going to win 2016. Or, vice versa, if the topic assigned was to investigate the Bush electoral coalition and the use of state ballot initiatives to drive evangelical turnout in 2004, a student who writes a paper about how Bush was a shitty president and was reading to a middle school when 9/11 happened, that's not "disagreeing" with the material, that's viewing it as illegitimate for profs to ask them to do anything they don't want to.

I'm not particularly experienced with this stuff, but I am confident that anyone who makes a career of instructing at the university level runs into at least a few kids a semester who are disruptive not because they think the prof is wrong, but rather because they think the prof and the subject matter is totally illegitimate and they ought not need to learn it.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

It only sucks if pride is an issue. If you can see things outside of your perspective and take in as much information as you can to see how you ended up being who you are today, you can admit whether or not you are privileged with honesty. Me for example, even though I am black, I rarely have had it be a problem for me, and am fortunate enough to have parents who did their best to bring me a middle class lifestyle. I have it much easier than other blacks but slightly more difficult to some whites.

I agree, I would add that a lot of people need to take a step back and realise that life is not a competitive pastime. My achievements give me a level of personal pride, so I don't feel the need to compare them with other people my age who had a similar start in life. If I'm happy then I'm winning, not the other way around. That makes it much easier to think about the privileges my class and race bestowed upon me without feeling as though I'm in some way undermined by the acknowledgment that I had an easier time than someone else.

 

[Takuan]

We have no idea what was going on in that classroom so I'm unsure why everybody seems to have such a strong opinion about it. Maybe there's just three shitty entitled white kids. Or maybe there's a professor who has a particular bug up her ass about societal racism and consistently inserted into lectures it wasn't relevant to. If my physiology professor constantly ranted about racism I'd be annoyed too. Legitimate issue, not the time to talk about it. Maybe.

I find both possibilities equally likely. And frankly based on the one quote from the school's reprimand saying she was singling out particular students almost as if she was accusing them, I'm slightly leaning towards the complaints being justified.

Yeah, the article doesn't do a particularly good job of providing a context. One of the quotes seems to imply that it was a recurring theme in the class (something along the lines of "why do we have to bring this up every time"). It's hard to determine whether the student was speaking generally, or if the professor would emphasize race relations in every lecture.

 

[dapperbandit]

Dapper, recognizing white priviledge is a piece of the puzzle. As Kinitari mentions it's not meant to be wielded as a weapon. But I do believe that it is an important part of the endgame. It's easy enough to think it's all common knowledge but I think you would be surprised (or not) to find a lot of people deny or do no recognize it. It's part of overall efforts to empathize with your fellow man and come to terms with the reality of our current situation.

Yeah I appreciate your considered responses I think I get it now.

Somewhere along the lines I thought this was being presented as a solution rather than a tool to inform and inspire empathy.

I've questioned it before (not on this forum) and had it wielded like a club at me, possibly by someone who also did not fully understand it, which probably hampered my understanding of it.

Having said that however, I think a lot of people will resolutely react negatively to the concept because they perceive it as attempting alleviate the un-privileged of all social responsibility.

 

[methane47]

The Europeans being greeted as gods is pretty much apocryphal.

Still the point holds. Europeans generally weren't treated like dogshit when they arrives in other peoples countries

 

[IHaveCandy]

There isn't much to go with here. Was the professor's lessons truly too lob sided about racism? I could understand the student's issue if the class is about a larger lesson but being focused on mainly just racism. If her lesson is what is typically expected from the class, then I don't think their is anything to be looked at here besides this alleged racial discrimination issue from the school administration.

 

[-Plasma Reus-]

I'm white and proud of it, or is that wrong?

I think 'proud' in this context means something else.
Does possessing this characteristic mean you are at a disadvantage due to societal institutions?
Then yes, you can be proud of whatever characteristic you possess in the face of this.
If not, then there is nothing to be proud about.

 

[Aylinato]

I don't think you understand the value of privilege as a social construct. Privilege isn't about solving the problem, it is about making people away that their own thought processes are shaped by who they are and so deeply-held internally felt assumptions might shape the way they respond to claims of discrimination, unequal treatment, or lessened opportunity.

For example if a middle class suburbanite makes the argument "I have no idea why so many black urban kids are drawn into gang membership. They should just join a club or play with good kids in their neighborhood", then they are making assumptions about the opportunities available to urban kids that are not correct. It's true that you could refute this by saying "Well, often times whole areas are faced with decay, there's a lack of municipal services--encouraged largely by suburbanites who vote down tax revenues needed to pay for these services--to say nothing of the problem of broken homes and male role models being in jail thanks largely to the war on drugs". And then this goes back and forth "Hey I don't necessarily agree with drug laws but if you do the crime you do the time", which of course is based on an assumption that the laws are being enforced in an even-handed way, that access to legal counsel is comparable for all people if they are caught, that sentencing is fair, that all people are 100% in control of all of their actions and there are no social pressures to perpetuate crime based on the opportunities available to people. "Well sure I know it's tough when you have fewer opportunities but if you work extra hard you'll get ahead and be able to leave that stuff behind, just look at <xyz person who succeeded>. Also I have friends who come from homes with rough parenting situations and they turned out well."

Basically, when the argument someone is making is a series of assumptions about what humans can do apparently divorced from any kind of understanding of how social context shapes them, that is privilege. You can demonstrate the arguments are wrong with evidence and people absolutely do, using evidence. But privilege is also a useful theoretical construct to remind someone that they internalize so many assumptions about how things operate. It's about saying "Instead of just confidently declaring you've got this figured out, maybe stop to listen to claims about inequity in good faith and try to be aware of what assumptions you have that cause you to doubt the claims of inequity because they don't apply to you."

Privilege doesn't "solve" inequality, it's a concept that we hope people learn to apply when they react to claims of inequality so that they themselves are more likely to understand the source of the claim and thus more willing to cooperate to fix them.

I love this post.

 

[Byakuya769]

Students should challenge a professor, absolutely, but typically they should not challenge the professor on the basis that they do not agree that something should be taught.

Exactly. There is a wide difference between a debate on the merits of structural racism and "why do you have to always hear about this?"

 

[animus82]

I'm white and proud of it, or is that wrong?

Proud of what exactly? Proud you were born a certain way?

Lol, did you accomplish something to be proud of? You should be proud of your father.

 

[hey_it's_that_dog]

Someone can't have pride if they're not being oppressed? What a load of shit.

It's silly to be proud of things you don't control, but the reason Black pride has been fostered is because of decades upon decades of a culture telling them they are lesser beings. Pride movements emerge to combat self-hatred instilled by a hostile culture. White people don't need that at the moment.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Does possessing this characteristic mean you are at a disadvantage due to societal institutions?
Then yes, you can be proud of whatever characteristic you possess in the face of this.

If not, then there is nothing to be proud about.

I don't know if I entirely agree with this premise. As a white person, I certainly don't feel ashamed just at the innate characteristic of being white. Now obviously, you might correctly argue that there's a continuum here, and I don't have to choose between the binary choices of pride and shame. And I'd probably argue that I'm fairly ambivalent in this regard. I personally don't know if I have much in the way of pride for my heritage other than conceding that there are advantages to being white.

But I digress. The point is that I don't necessarily think there's anything wrong with anyone being proud of who they are. That sentiment isn't reserved for just minorities. But what I think you're getting at is that there's no need for a pride movement, which I would agree with. As a white person, I can't make a good argument for what possible benefit a White Pride Parade would provide, or why we would need White History Month. So in that regard, I agree with you.

 

[Hawkian]

If you want to reverse the races in this situation then let's do that. The truth of the matter is that if the races were reversed, like you proposed, she wouldn't even be working right now. She would have been fired for being a bigot a long time ago. She seems like she's already damaged herself professionally given this situation and past issues as well.

I don't know if you meant reversing all the races in question, such that a white professor was lamenting the inherent bias toward black men in media... but such a hypothetical professor should indeed be fired for spouting abject nonense.

On the other hand, the professor that I encountered during my schooling most critical of the impact of white males on modern history and communication was an elderly white woman. She said things in class that were more "inflammatory" than anything I see Gibney having voiced. Her job was secure. Honestly she was so old I think her tenure had tenure.

 

[Red Blaster]

Yeah, the article doesn't do a particularly good job of providing a context. One of the quotes seems to imply that it was a recurring theme in the class (something along the lines of "why do we have to bring this up every time"). It's hard to determine whether the student was speaking generally, or if the professor would emphasize race relations in every lecture.

and basic experience has dictated that giving the benefit of the doubt to college undergrads is never a good idea

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Maybe people wouldn't get so pissy if it was "black unashamed" rather than "pride".

 

[Lambtron]

White males between the ages of 12 and 35 are just the worst.

Real fuckin' talk.

 

[Valhelm]

What? Privilege and Guilt in this context are different things, something you seem to simultaneously agree/disagree with.

As for the rest of your post, this is why I consider white privilege a dead end.

The rest of your post...

we need to recognize what we hold a position of almost inalienable privilege, and that we need to take action to ensure that, in the long run, all Americans (and perhaps all people) have access to this privilege

...can be summed up as:

1) White people need to recognise social priveleges
2) ???
3) A fair and just society for all

Acknowledging that you are better off than others accomplishes absolutely nothing. It won't fix institutional racism, it won't level the playing field, it won't address generalised social prejudice that leads an employer to not hire your "Tyrone Brown" over your "John Smith".

It's a thin bandaid for a haemorrhage.

The issue is that we need to recognize a problem before we can solve the problem.

Very many Americans think that racism basically ended in the 1960s. The Fox News twitter debacle is a great example of this. White Americans at large need to identify that they hold a position of privilege before institutional racism cans seriously be addressed.

 

[-Plasma Reus-]

I don't know if I entirely agree with this premise. As a white person, I certainly don't feel ashamed just at the innate characteristic of being white. Now obviously, you might correctly argue that there's a continuum here, and I don't have to choose between the binary choices of pride and shame. And I'd probably argue that I'm fairly ambivalent in this regard. I personally don't know if I have much in the way of pride for my heritage other than conceding that there are advantages to being white.

But I digress. The point is that I don't necessarily think there's anything wrong with anyone being proud of who they are. That sentiment isn't reserved for just minorities. But what I think you're getting at is that there's no need for a pride movement, which I would agree with. As a white person, I can't make a good argument for what possible benefit a White Pride Parade would provide, or why we would need White History Month. So in that regard, I agree with you.

Good points. And it looks like we agree.
I just wish I added 'I think 'proud' in this context means something else.' a bit sooner to my original post.

You can be proud of anything. But the notion of a pride movement is explicitly for those characteristics which society uses to favour some groups of people over others.

 

[pants]

Having read this entire thread now, I cant say the story makes much of a case for or against the professor. In the absence of more information i'll simply shrug and wait till I hear more.

 

[pompidu]

White males between the ages of 12 and 35 are just the worst.

I usually just chill on the sidelines for these kinds of threads but there is no need to make sweeping generalizations like this, especially when they are untrue.

 

[Valhelm]

Still the point holds. Europeans generally weren't treated like dogshit when they arrives in other peoples countries

That's not really true, seeing as European settlers very often encountered hostility in the areas they colonized. But that's beside the point, seeing as in their colonial struggles, Europeans won through war crimes, trickery, and (usually not deliberate) genocide.

 

[Stumpokapow]

As it relates to introductory courses, it's actually fairly typical for there to be a social theme running through the course. For example in Intro to Poli Sci, I've worked with multiple profs who have different social themes. One did "civic engagement and participation" with a focus on domestic issues. One did "democracy around the world". One did "pluralism in society". All of these are acceptable approaches, because Intro to Poli Sci isn't typically about teaching one set of facts, but rather giving students exposure to various themes that will come up in subsequent courses. The pluralism kids might have been better equipped for political thought courses while the democracy kids might have been equipped better for comparative and IR stream courses; the civic engagement kids were probably being prepped more for practical real-world internship type stream courses, social movements courses, and Canadian politics.

And the idea that the same course varies heavily based on who is teaching it is not unusual anyway. Likewise, I've done research methods several times. When I did research methods in Sociology it was a mixed methods course that did survey design, research ethics, and focus group interviews. When I did research methods in Political Science at the undergrad level, it was focused on survey design and quanitative methods. When I did research methods at the graduate level, the course I ended up in was a constructivist approach that was closer to an philosophy of science type course, and the primary unit of production was a French-style problématique. The same semesters I did research methods at the graduate level, the other graduate methods course in the department was hard-quantitative stuff mostly about statistical analysis and regression development. These are all valid methods courses. And yeah it's a little unfair that students who maybe lean towards one type of methods might not have access to the best fit for them depending on course availability, but it's also valuable to be exposed to methods you might not normally study. Some departments might explicitly separate various approaches into separate courses, but in general it's not considered unethical for a course to have a focus.

I am sure that others arts and social sciences students can comment on how their experiences were in the above.

In all cases, a student saying "I don't think the course should focus on the thing it's focusing on" makes an assumption that the student should direct and tailor their own learning, rather than that an arts education ought to round a student out by exposing them to major themes and perspectives.

 

[andycapps]

By "own up", I mean that white people need to accept that they have a position of privilege, which they achieved through morally abhorrent means, and that white people need to realize that they are still continuing to oppress people of color, both at home and abroad.

The fact that many white people are offended whenever their ancestors (not specific ancestors, but European white people from the 15th-20th centuries) are accused of racism says so much about current society. It's awesome that most white people agree that racism is wrong, but it's not so awesome that most white people act like they have nothing to do with it.

Actually no. We didn't do any of that. Our ancestors several hundred years ago did that. We may be enjoying the results of the shit that they did to some ancestors of another skin color, but I did not participate in any of this. Your second paragraph gets it correct, but your first is off base. And yeah, most white people don't actively perpetuate racism, but they do tend to reap results in society by virtue of being white. I think there is a distinction, but white privilege is something for people to be aware of. The question in this thread is whether a professor teaching mass communication should have been informing her students of this, the manner she did so, and the frequency with which she did so.

 

[Hawkian]

Europeans won through war crimes, trickery, and (usually not deliberate) genocide.

Stupid disease, always deciding the course of history without asking.

 

[IHaveCandy]

Exactly. There is a wide difference between a debate on the merits of structural racism and "why do you have to always hear about this?"

Shouldn't the question be "did the professor lob side her class lessons too much about racism to he point that it failed to cover other necessary topics of the class?" That seems to be the students' argument.

 

[Dash27]

It pays to be offended, and to be the victim. That's been shown over and over. When you reward something you get more of it, valid or not. I expect to see more of this. Especially since in this dynamic the victim needs to have an oppressor, who can then turn around and be the victim. Very synergistic!

 

[Valhelm]

The privilege that a white american statistically enjoys over a black american pales in comparison to the privilege that any american enjoys over a somalian, or hatian, or romanian, or peruvian, or most of the rest of the world for that matter. Maybe instead it being 'white guilt' it ought to be 'first world nation guilt' and then together we can takle some of the greatest inequalities in our world.

Yeah, of course. But that's irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is racial inequality in the United States.