Support NeoGAF

[w00twood]

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 agree that students shouldn't write value-based criticisms of ideas, parties etc but I think you're being a bit one-sided against students complaining (I don't endorse the complaints of the three white kids, I would have to take that course myself to know if she talked about structural racism too much).

Like you I did political science at university. There was one dreadful course, International Political Economy, that was taught by a Marxist professor (I'm not exaggerating, she wasn't moderately left wing). There were three main theoretical approaches described in the course guide, liberal, realist and critical (aka Marxist) as well as a couple of lectures covering minor things like feminist contributions to this field. The professor spent far more time on the critical approach than the other two main views put together, and even a pretty left-wing guy on my course was complaining that we weren't seeing more of the liberal approach.

If anyone had complained to her about it, she could have used your argument there- we were undergrads and unfortunately weren't in a position to tell how much of each she should teach. She could have said that most of the literature (or at least major literature) was being taught in the course and as it happens, it is critical theory is dominant at the moment. If we complained, 'why do we have to hear so much about the Marxist interpretations', I think we would have been correct to do so. As it happens I disagree with it, but she really was teaching it too much.

So in short...

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.

Your own assumption doesn't allow the possibility that professors themselves might focus on one theme/perspective too much- the course description might cover many but in practice it is biased. In IPE we were supposed to get a balanced view of the major themes but we didn't.

 

[Kinitari]

Because there is almost no positive motivation to point out white pride over something more granular like Canadian pride or Minnesotan pride or what have you. It pretty much exclusively comes up in us vs. Them culture wars contexts. Its kind of crazy to simply act like none of that context exists.

As I have repeated, there are many specific reasons why American blacks identify as a singular culture despite having varied (and usually untraceable) roots. The only purpose behind connecting groups as disparate as Norwegians and people from Ohio as "white" is one that has a lot of negative connotations. These people don't have a common culture; American blacks do.

There is no positive motivation for me to point out African pride over something more granular like Ethiopian pride either - does that mean that I should be assumed racist or something for saying I am proud to be African? There is basically no similarity between any two ends of Africa, but I don't think people bat an eye when Africans say they are proud of being African. I understand that the idea of considering yourself as a white person immediately applies this overarching negative connotation when it comes to pride, but it doesn't have to mean that. It's entirely possible that someone can be proud of being white for as arbitrary a reason as someone can be proud of being African, or Asian, or from the southern hemisphere or something like that.

Context is less meaningful here than intent, at least when it comes to making assumptions about peoples motivations. Let people say they are proud of being white, let people say they are proud of being a man, let people say that they are proud of being southern or whatever - but that doesn't mean that you support the people who say they hate black people, or women, or people from the north.

 

[IHaveCandy]

Perhaps growing up in a family from a homogenous culture is why you're having trouble seeing the purpose of tools like pride movements.

Nobody is saying you can't be proud of your culture. The thing is, "white" isn't a culture.

There is no "white culture". There is no "black culture". There is no "Asian culture". There is no Hispanic culture." There are several different cultures within a race. Yes, white people do have a culture that can largely be originated from their racial and national background. Racial groups all have several different cultures within them. A white man's culture originated from somewhere. The chances are that it came from a white background. Saying it isn't a culture is like saying vanilla isn't a flavor of ice cream just because it is so common.

 

[RoninChaos]

You don't think that white people should own up to their generally higher position in American society? Seriously?

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.

"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.

WTF. You're framing this like people should be responsible for what their ancestors did, and in your specific example you say "Not specific ancestors" which implies that you would hold an entire race responsible for something the current generation has nothing to do with. One of my best friends is mexican, he doesn't want to punch people from spain in the mouth or demand that they realize what their people did to his. That's RIDICULOUS. It is RIDICULOUS to hold someone responsible for something they had no part in.

And then you turn around and say that people shouldn't feel guilty for what their ancestors did, but before that you were saying that white people need to own up. What the fuck are you trying to say here?

Look, there are societal issues that come down to race in America. Everyone knows that. The class system in this country is fucked up, but white people "owning up!" won't fix the issues that folks are talking about, especially when no one knows what the fuck "owning up" even means. Should things change so everyone is on equal footing? Yes, absolutely. But saying shit like "WHITE PEOPLE SHOULD REALIZE THEY'RE HOLDING PEOPLE DOWN, EVEN NOW!" to people who are doing no such thing is beyond insulting.

If people want things to change in this country, especially on a governmental level, we have to get rid of ignorance, not embrace it. That's the start. Then the education can come, and so can change. But we stay electing people in this country who care more about issues like occupying foreign countries than fixing base problems at home. Until Americans elect people who want to govern and not obstruct, things are going to get WORSE. You can scream "OWN UP" but that's not a strategy.

 

[IHaveCandy]

Ok. Cultural, racial, national and power relations and their related discussion are wastes of time. Ok, bro.

That's not what I said. Please discuss this with intellectual honesty.

 

[shanshan310]

I'm not saying you're a secret racist, just that your perspective is extremely simplistic and not a little ignorant.

If a man stands up in a bar and said "I'm proud of being white" that carries some negative connotations. Its not a good idea. Because of cultural context. It simply works that way.

I'm not saying cultural context doesn't matter. Heck I just said I didn't want to say "white pride" because of the cultural connotations. But even if it comes of as bad in public (which is clearly has) the intent of the person doesn't have to be racist.

Bullshit. If I asked you why you're proud to be Australian, you could easily list off things about your nation that you are proud of and you see as good: "Our labor activation policies are some of the strongest in the world." If you can't do that, well then I guess that is just blind nationalism, which is bad. But I don't think it is that.

Okay, I guess I can do that.
So, thinking in my exhausted sleep deprived mind about why am I proud? Because of my cultural heritage, and my cultural heritage is tied to my race. I'm pretty sure this is just my first post all over again.
Other than the connotations with "white power" and American slavery, why is it wrong for someone white to be proud of that? As long as they don't see other races as lesser, what's the issue exactly?

 

[shanshan310]

...I agree (except for skin color being enough commonality to pass for a shared culture, that's absurd). But all these terms are shorthand. "Black power" refers to uplifting oppressed American blacks. An American Asian might say they're proud of being Asian, but a South Korean living there would never think to utter the phrase.

There are reasons to bother saying any of these things. Saying you have White Pride out loud has a motivation that saying "that lady has pretty porcelain skin" doesn't.

So it's the terminology you take issue with.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Your assuming that that class is framed that way (I didnt see where it did or not). There is a difference between open ended discussions with a class and a teacher using their class as a soap box and not getting to core of the course study. If what the prof is talking about is irrelevant to the study and continues on a daily basis I would most definitely complain. I'm not sure were getting all the facts here.

I have no problem admitting that we don't have all the facts--and indeed I bet if we did the professor would be an annoying soapboxer and a bomb-thrower, intellectually. But I still maintain that given the historical context of academic freedom complaints made by students in the US (especially in the last 25 years and through the framework of FIRE and other organizations), and given the deference and leeway that would be given to a professor, it is highly unlikely that the issue crosses the line from "ill-advised" to "an actionable complaint".

I'd also argue that teachers who do push up against the line still provide a pretty valuable test of your own resolve and ability to think critically. I had a teacher in a democracy course who I felt was unusually vocal about his religion (and one of the controversial issues in democratization is obviously the way that social or religious values interact with capacity for democratization) but in general I would say that for me it was pretty good in the way it helped me refine my own readings of the literature in that part of the field. I also did a course on activist groups and obviously both the student body and prof were of an activist persuasion, far more than I am, but again I would say it helped shape me.

Most of the people I've seen be successful in academia and have good minds for it ultimately view frustrating or asinine material or a political bent on the part of the professor as a challenge to overcome and a test of their resolve, but typically the kinds of students I've seen complain about academic freedom issues due to course content are largely students who feel they shouldn't be forced to engage with material they don't care about. Even if they're correct on the teacher's soapbox, the question of whether it crosses the line to not be a legitimate avenue of instruction is a whole other one. Professors aren't expected to be "objective", they're expected to be "fair".

 

[Kinyou]

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/...dents_during_structural_racism_discussion.php

Singling out your students to make an example of them? That is the true definition of being put on the spot.

If she really pointed at people or said something to the effect of 'all white males in here are racists!' Then I think the students had good reason to complain

 

[Seanspeed]

Real fuckin' talk.

The statement

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

is extremely racist.

How is this acceptable? Do people really feel that racism is acceptable so long as its not 'oppressing anybody'? I'm baffled at how this is not an instantly bannable comment.

This is not equality. This is complete and utter reverse racism and goes to show that being persecuted does not give people a more enlightened stance on things. It shows how attacking prejudicial beliefs about other humans is the real thing that needs to be attacked, not just racism in particular when people feel its getting out of hand.

My god.

 

[IHaveCandy]

...I agree (except for skin color being enough commonality to pass for a shared culture, that's absurd). But all these terms are shorthand. "Black power" refers to uplifting oppressed American blacks. An American Asian might say they're proud of being Asian, but a South Korean living there would never think to utter the phrase.

There are reasons to bother saying any of these things. Saying you have White Pride out loud has a motivation that saying "that lady has pretty porcelain skin" doesn't.

The few times anybody has said it without racist intent would be someone in dire need of some socializing.

That seems extremely unfair to me. I'm not a fan of assuming the worst out of people. Like I've been saying, I think using race as a source of pride and shame overall is pretty pointless. I don't agree with it at all. But I do not agree with showing any particular race extra contempt for having pride for their race than another gets.


Also, I was not trying to say same skin color = same culture. I'm saying their culture can be derived from a group also considered the same race as them. So they may also short-hand their cultural background as "white". America has made it difficult even for some white people to tell exactly where there heritage and culture is from unless they do some heavy digging. It's nothing like what slavery has done for African Americans, but the casual white cultural enthusiast might just consider himself having a "white culture".

 

[Byakuya769]

That's not what I said. Please discuss this with intellectual honesty.

It pretty much is. It's hard to discuss broad societal issues without broad generalities. You however, want to focus on exceptions on the margins to stidfle that discussion and turn it into the tired, old argument of the discussion leading to the problem. My generalities are based on broad experience, you're bringing up hypothetical people to debate them.

 

[Bellamin]

Other than the connotations with "white power" and American slavery, why is it wrong for someone white to be proud of that? As long as they don't see other races as lesser, what's the issue exactly?

Speaking as a white guy, I really don't see myself as in a community with other white people. Irish? Sure. Agnostic/Atheist? Yep.

As for the original article, it's only five paragraphs long and the reporter only spoke to the professor. That's not journalism, that's advocacy.

 

[IHaveCandy]

It pretty much is. It's hard to discuss broad societal issues without broad generalities. You however, want to focus on exceptions on the margins to stidfle that discussion and turn it into the tired, old argument of the discussion leading to the problem. My generalities are based on broad experience, you're bringing up hypothetical people to debate them.

No. I want you to treat the individual you are talking to about his white pride as an individual and not tell him why he fits in the perceived majority view.

 

[shanshan310]

...is that not what this entire conversation has been about?

I never once said you should feel guilty about thinking someone has nice looking skin or whatever.

lol. Oh dear >< Sorry about that.

My point was just that people can feel proud of parts of themselves separate from historical factors. I didn't mean to start such a long conversation.

Speaking as a white guy, I really don't see myself as in a community with other white people. Irish? Sure. Agnostic/Atheist? Yep.

As for the original article, it's only five paragraphs long and the reporter only spoke to the professor. That's not journalism, that's advocacy.

I've been known as "the white chick" throughout university and lots of people have commented on it and my ancestry. For a long time I felt kind of uncomfortable with it (I didn't notice until people kept repeating it) but I am proud of where my family has come from and I don't think it's something to be ashamed of. In a "white community" I don't think I'd ever have noticed it at all.

 

[Enzom21]

The statement

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

is extremely racist.

How is this acceptable? Do people really feel that racism is acceptable so long as its not 'oppressing anybody'? I'm baffled at how this is not an instantly bannable comment.

This is not equality. This is complete and utter reverse racism and goes to show that being persecuted does not give people a more enlightened stance on things. It shows how attacking prejudicial beliefs about other humans is the real thing that needs to be attacked, not just racism in particular when people feel its getting out of hand.

My god.

What's "reverse racism?!"

 

[methane47]

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.

They encountered hostility mostly after years and years of raping and pillaging of the locals' lands lol.

 

[Kinitari]

It pretty much is. It's hard to discuss broad societal issues without broad generalities. You however, want to focus on exceptions on the margins to stidfle that discussion and turn it into the tired, old argument of the discussion leading to the problem. My generalities are based on broad experience, you're bringing up hypothetical people to debate them.

Working in generalities when it comes to applying negative or positive traits on a group of people is a bad place to start from. it's also entirely unnecessary, you don't HAVE to assume anything negative about people who choose to be prideful of being white, but you think it's important to? At least important enough to defend.

 

[Stumpokapow]

I agree that students shouldn't write value-based criticisms of ideas, parties etc but I think you're being a bit one-sided against students complaining (I don't endorse the complaints of the three white kids, I would have to take that course myself to know if she talked about structural racism too much).

Like you I did political science at university. There was one dreadful course, International Political Economy, that was taught by a Marxist professor (I'm not exaggerating, she wasn't moderately left wing). There were three main theoretical approaches described in the course guide, liberal, realist and critical (aka Marxist) as well as a couple of lectures covering minor things like feminist contributions to this field. The professor spent far more time on the critical approach than the other two main views put together, and even a pretty left-wing guy on my course was complaining that we weren't seeing more of the liberal approach.

If anyone had complained to her about it, she could have used your argument there- we were undergrads and unfortunately weren't in a position to tell how much of each she should teach. She could have said that most of the literature (or at least major literature) was being taught in the course and as it happens, it is critical theory is dominant at the moment. If we complained, 'why do we have to hear so much about the Marxist interpretations', I think we would have been correct to do so. As it happens I disagree with it, but she really was teaching it too much.

Your own assumption doesn't allow the possibility that professors themselves might focus on one theme/perspective too much- the course description might cover many but in practice it is biased. In IPE we were supposed to get a balanced view of the major themes but we didn't.

In IPE it probably would be ideal that you get a balanced view of the themes, and certainly you'd probably feel a little marooned if you took further courses that expected you to have knowledge in policy approaches you didn't study. However, there's nothing wrong with a professor being a doctrinaire Marxist (or a true liberal) and emphasizing accordingly. When I took Modern Social Theory we did a bunch of Actor-Network Theory stuff because the prof was a scholar who covered Latour. When I took Sociology of Globalization we did a lot of urban development stuff because the prof was an urban development scholar. When I took Political Thought as an undergrad we disproportionately emphasized early liberal thinkers (to the degree that I feel reform liberalism, Marxism, and conservatism all got shortchanged). When I did comparative politics as an undergrad, we emphasized small-n institutional comparisons and Latin America as a region of study to the extent that when I did comparative politics as a graduate, I had trouble with some of the African region of study material and a lot of post-colonial, post-structuralist approaches. I did an oral presentation for a graduate methods course where I discussed my criticism of regression analysis in a particular field, and almost no one in the class knew what a regression was. It happens. It's okay. No one ever gets a fully rounded education and the tradeoff of depth and breadth is a challenge throughout education.

An old friend of mine who did a Philosophy PhD used to gripe about his undergrad students. Some simply didn't believe in philosophy (typically first-year complaints like "who cares about the nature of a chair in front of me? I'm doing a business degree"), while others had read some philosopher in high school our of interest and thought they were an expert (typically it'd be Sartre or Nietzsche and they'd just parrot their very limited understandings of it). The common thread is that a student's first impulse was to say "I know what I need to know, the prof has nothing to teach me" or "I know what I want to be taught, so teach me that".

There's nothing wrong with lamenting this kind of focus or wishing you had a different focus in your course. If I were in your IPE class I'd have considered switching out for another section or taking it a different term. I know plenty of friends who hated this one IR realist prof and tried to avoid him. Personally I avoided basically any prof with an IPE focus because it's not a discipline I am much interested in. But when your lament rises to what amounts to an allegation of malpractice then I think very few students are in a position to themselves have a rounded-enough background to really understand the value of what they're being taught, the value of what's absent, who the major authors are, the value of being challenged. I think the tendency to label a politically charged professor as "biased" or "indoctrinating" is frustrating, especially given how many of the great intellectuals of the world were well known for their hard stances but were also able to engage in rigorous and respectful debate with those who disagreed.

 

[PogiJones]

This is basically a case of he said, she said, and everyone is choosing to believe the side with whom they more associate.

She says the students started the conflict. The students and the letter of reprimand say that she started the conflict by initially singling out the students in the class.

Since her Rate my professor page has multiple complaints that also allege her singling out students that date back to '07, I'm inclined to believe the letter of reprimand over her word. But ultimately, it's just a matter of who you believe.

 

[Kinyou]

What's "reverse racism?!"

Fighting racism with racism afaik

 

[IHaveCandy]

I don't want to assume the worst of people. But a good person can throw around all sorts of racist language, and I'll feel compelled to confront them. I don't simply mark people as one thing or another. I'm not sure why you keep going to that particular well.

Yet the world is an unfair, dangerous place. I'm not white. I live in the Midwest. If I walk into a bar and the term "white pride" is being shouted about, I'm not giving anybody the benefit of the doubt. I'm getting the hell out of there.

As for your last point, most people would arrive at "American" for their cultural identifier before "white". Hell I'm from a Puerto Rican family, but I mainly identify as American. I don't speak Spanish, I don't spend much time with my family, I'm of the American culture above all.

What if you walked into a bar of people yelling "Black Pride!" How would you feel about that? To go further along with that, what do you think of websites like www.blackpeoplemeet.com? Would you feel similarly about a white version of that website if it was made for a American city region that had a lower white population?

I'm not asking you all this to try and catch you in the act of something. I'm just curious where you fall on that.

 

[Stumpokapow]

This is basically a case of he said, she said, and everyone is choosing to believe the side with whom they more associate.

She says the students started the conflict. The students and the letter of reprimand say that she started the conflict by initially singling out the students in the class.

Since her Rate my professor page has multiple complaints that also allege her singling out students that date back to '07, I'm inclined to believe the letter of reprimand over her word. But ultimately, it's just a matter of who you believe.

If the complaint is limited to the treatment of individual students then that sounds highly probable. I think most people who are making this a more structural type debate, myself included, are demuring on the basis that the source of the debate as presented in the OP was about the focus of the course. Now, it could be because Salon's framing tends to be left-progressive especially on social justice issues, of course.

 

[Pryce]

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

How in the hell is this allowed?

 

[methane47]

This is basically a case of he said, she said, and everyone is choosing to believe the side with whom they more associate.

She says the students started the conflict. The students and the letter of reprimand say that she started the conflict by initially singling out the students in the class.

Since her Rate my professor page has multiple complaints that also allege her singling out students that date back to '07, I'm inclined to believe the letter of reprimand over her word. But ultimately, it's just a matter of who you believe.

I actually Believe that she indeed focused too much on racism.

Where I see this going is, the kids will win the class action suit and she will lose her job.
And people all over America will forever use this instance to show that "Racism" is just as bad on the other side.

It will be like the Naggers South Park episode

Every referral to "Racism by whites" will get met with.. "oh well remember when that teacher talked about racism too much and made them feel guilty? That's just as bad"

 

[Figboy79]

Yeah, it's a good subject to touch upon, the same as sexism in mass communication. But doing so every class might get a bit old.

Sure it could probably get old, but for me, personally, I love talking about issues like sexism and racism.

As a black male, I have a particular experience with racism. My wife is a white woman, and she has a particular experience with sexism. One of my best friends is a white/persian male, and he has a particular experience with racism, as well as white privilege (he looks white, and many people have no idea he is persian until they meet his father). He is also from an upper middle class to upper class family, so he also has an experience with economical classes. We absolutely love talking about sexism and racism with each other because, with those varying experiences, we are able to come to a better understanding of where each other is coming from, instead of taking a head in the sand, overly defensive stance which shuts out all conversation, like some people seem to do.

Yes, not all white people are "The Devil." No shit. On the flip side, not all asians are martial artists or master mathematicians, not all Mexicans are lazy, not all people from the middle east are terrorists, not all black people are thugs, etc, etc. I think the professor, white, black, man, or woman, was perfectly legit in talking about these things with her class as they relate to Mass Communication. None of us were there, so I can't say for certain, but I'm pretty sure that she wasn't specifically targeting the three males. I'm sure she didn't say, "Look at, Tom, Dick, and Harry, they are the enemy!"

Looking at how defensive some white males have gotten, even in this very thread, I can easily see how a bunch of young college students (probably early 20's), could misread her lecture, and take it personally.

I feel that discussions on racism, no matter how repetitive, always have some kind of merit, and can be incredibly enlightening and beneficial to those willing to open their ears and minds, and empathize and understand, without immediately thinking that you are being specifically targeted because someone says, "History shows that white males experience this type of privilege," or something along those lines.

Again, the conversations I have with my wife about sexism, and the struggle of being a woman in America is very similar to the struggle of being a black male (and an even more interesting wrinkle/struggle for black females; that's like, double the struggle!) in America. There are very fascinating parallels between the two struggles, and of course, obvious differences.

This professor is a black woman. I'd love to hear about her experiences not only as a woman, and as a black person, but as a black woman in the educational system.

 

[dr3upmushroom]

ITT: White dudes be mad.

Meh, seems like she does have an agenda but doesn't excuse the students from being dicks. Even if she walked in with a bias, structural racism has been institutionalized in all aspects of American life since the country's inception.

 

[Enzom21]

Fighting racism with racism afaik

Really? I always thought it was a stupid ass term often used by the ignorant to complain about the unacceptable kind of racism.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reverse_racism

Describing anything as "reverse racism" is a good way to look like a racist yourself. Racist views held towards majority groups are still generally considered racism, despite the aforementioned efforts of the sociologists and social activists to exclude them; calling them "reverse racism" implies that there is a "normal" type of racism. It's not too hard to then draw the conclusion that "reverse racism" implies a tacit acceptance of racism against minority groups, almost an accidental admission that there are different (separate but equal) forms of racism.

 

[Nairume]

Also before the conquest actually happened, Muslims were busy pillaging villages and raping the women in coastal towns.

This is true (again, I note that when I said the Moorish conquerers were relatively relaxed in how they acted versus their contemporaries, they were still products of their time), but something that gets overlooked is that the reason why the raids went on for as long as they did and Tariq's own series of raids eventually snowballed into the conquest was that Spain's ruling class, who were themselves foreigners, were crazy bigoted towards the general population and didn't care to do anything to defend the people against the attacks until the Moors eventually started hitting major cities where the elite were more likely to have their own stuff stashed.

 

[PBY]

Both the professor and students sound like people I'd dislike- for different reasons. Only thing is that the professor is right here, while the kids are spewing ignorance in a way that's gross.

 

[Byakuya769]

No. I want you to treat the individual you are talking to about his white pride as an individual and not tell him why he fits in the perceived majority view.

You want me to treat your hypothetical person as an individual. Ok. What now? How has this jaunt aided the conversation?

 

[SmokyDave]

The statement

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

is extremely racist.

How is this acceptable? Do people really feel that racism is acceptable so long as its not 'oppressing anybody'? I'm baffled at how this is not an instantly bannable comment.

This is not equality. This is complete and utter reverse racism and goes to show that being persecuted does not give people a more enlightened stance on things. It shows how attacking prejudicial beliefs about other humans is the real thing that needs to be attacked, not just racism in particular when people feel its getting out of hand.

My god.

On the one hand I agree. That statement is fucking messy and could only ever be aimed at white males without incurring society's wrath. Much like smokers, white males are a group that it's OK to openly target. The mindset that gives birth to that phrase is racist, prejudicial, and destructive.

On the other hand, as a white male between the ages of 12 and 35, I find it difficult to give the slightest shit. It's like people hating on me for winning the lottery or something. Sure, I didn't earn it, but it's mine anyway. You're welcome to hold it against me because it ain't going to make the slightest difference in my life.

It ain't reverse racist though, it's just racist. Maybe ageist too. I'm not sure why the over 35s got a pass.

 

[IHaveCandy]

You want me to treat your hypothetical person as an individual. Ok. What now? How has this jaunt aided the conversation?

No, the actual person you were talking to about his white pride and trying to tell him why he has it.

 

[Seanspeed]

What's "reverse racism?!"

When somebody feels persecuted and goes on to generalize in reciprocation. Attacking prejudice with prejudice, in other words.

 

[Byakuya769]

No, the actual person you were talking to about his white pride and trying to tell him why he has it.

That actual person never said he had white pride. He couldn't even explain or describe why he would have white pride.

 

[IHaveCandy]

Well I'm not white. I'm not black either, but I'd feel less threatened around black power types. Racist African-Americans are out there, but I wouldn't feel too terrified to bring a white friend to hang out with some latter-day black panthers. Frankly except for the rarest, most militant wings of black power movements, throughout much of the 60's civil rights movement, white people laid down their lives and fought alongside them as much as anyone else. The movement simply doesn't have the same connotations as the skinheads who have beaten me up at punk shows or groups like that.

Blackpeoplemeet... That goes with the same cultural thing. African-Americans formed an ac-hoc culture in the US. A site like that won't be used by blacks who feel disconnected from that culture. Its as simple as that. Whereas a whites only website would have the commonality of finding other races distasteful and that's about it. It doesn't tap into something else like American blacks do.

That last part doesn't seem right. I think it is highly plausible that several racist African Americans or African Americans who just "don't want to date white people" would use that site. I would doubt a majority use it as a source of a cultural connection.

 

[w00twood]

An old friend of mine who did a Philosophy PhD used to gripe about his undergrad students. Some simply didn't believe in philosophy (typically first-year complaints like "who cares about the nature of a chair in front of me? I'm doing a business degree"), while others had read some philosopher in high school our of interest and thought they were an expert (typically it'd be Sartre or Nietzsche and they'd just parrot their very limited understandings of it). The common thread is that a student's first impulse was to say "I know what I need to know, the prof has nothing to teach me" or "I know what I want to be taught, so teach me that".

There's nothing wrong with lamenting this kind of focus or wishing you had a different focus in your course. If I were in your IPE class I'd have considered switching out for another section or taking it a different term. I know plenty of friends who hated this one IR realist prof and tried to avoid him. Personally I avoided basically any prof with an IPE focus because it's not a discipline I am much interested in. But when your lament rises to what amounts to an allegation of malpractice then I think very few students are in a position to themselves have a rounded-enough background to really understand the value of what they're being taught, the value of what's absent, who the major authors are, the value of being challenged. I think the tendency to label a politically charged professor as "biased" or "indoctrinating" is frustrating, especially given how many of the great intellectuals of the world were well known for their hard stances but were also able to engage in rigorous and respectful debate with those who disagreed.

The students your friend taught had a very poor work ethic, probably compounded by the fact they were there only to get credits for a different major. I heard a former economics professor complaining about business students on his course who were only there because they needed the credits and thought the course would be a piece of cake. They dragged down his teaching a lot because they didn't study for seminars etc and really brought down the enthusiasm of the class. It seems like quite a big problem.

But why should I have switched course just because I didn't like it? A professor could teach any old crap and it sounds like you'd excuse him because he's the professor. A departmental head- who had a different specialism and couldn't judge whether or not his colleague was teaching as broadly as his course obliged him- would be in an extremely difficult position but would have to dismiss all complaints of that sort. There has to be some degree of student feedback informing what is taught on the course.

If my IPE course was titled 'Marxist theories of IPE' then I agree that we couldn't complain about bias. But this was a mandatory entry-level course for all political science students and the professor was failing to teach the main theories equally. I think it's fine that she had her own views but she couldn't keep them from dominating her supposedly balanced course.

 

[shanshan310]

That actual person never said he had white pride. He couldn't even explain or describe why he would have white pride.

I responded in a few posts, some not directed at you. Did you just stop reading mine? I'm hurt

Spoiler

I'm also not a he... it feels like you're talking about someone else.

 

[PogiJones]

If the complaint is limited to the treatment of individual students then that sounds highly probable. I think most people who are making this a more structural type debate, myself included, are demuring on the basis that the source of the debate as presented in the OP was about the focus of the course. Now, it could be because Salon's framing tends to be left-progressive especially on social justice issues, of course.

Yeah, according to this source, the letter explicitly condones the teaching of structural racism, but condemns singling out students in a way that creates a hostile learning environment.

Re: Salon, the most effective way to lie to someone is to tell them only part of the truth. My cynicism for the media has slowly grown to near fever-pitched levels as I've become more and more aware of their tendency to omit material facts. I really, really loath the media right now. I never thought I'd be one of those guys, but here I am.

I actually Believe that she indeed focused too much on racism.

Where I see this going is, the kids will win the class action suit and she will lose her job.
And people all over America will forever use this instance to show that "Racism" is just as bad on the other side.

It will be like the Naggers South Park episode

Yes, but if it's an actual case of discrimination, should we make the students fall on their swords just to avoid future white supremacist PR stunts?

 

[IHaveCandy]

That actual person never said he had white pride. He couldn't even explain or describe why he would have white pride.

The actual person said he did but didn't really have a reason for it.

 

[AlimNassor]

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

It's wrong. Theres nothing to be proud of. We've done good, but, the good is overshadowed and rightfully so, by all the horrors we've done. As a white man I apologize for this, and it's just another grim reminder of the state of racial affairs in this country.

 

[IHaveCandy]

If you're going to carry on building a hypothetical person, he or she needs to be a bit more fully-realized than this.

How is "white pride" brought up in conversation by this person? Is it them saying "I have pretty skin" or are they literally saying "I'm proud of being white"? And if so, why use the word "proud"?

Does shanshan310 no longer exist? He/she is not a hypothetical person.

 

[Byakuya769]

The actual person said he did but didn't really have a reason for it.

I'm proud to be me, and I'm proud of my heritage, so I guess so. It's made me who I am. I don't think it would matter what racial background I had though (as in, if my family originated in Asia or something), I'd be proud of it anyway, whatever it was.

Why? That's an impossible question to answer, sorry.

Clearly someone brimming with pride over his "whiteness."

 

[Deified Data]

How difficult is it to hold your tongue for a single second in a conversation like this and confirm whether or not you, personally, contribute to the problem? How hard is it to take a second and realize that in a conversation on institutionalized racism the finger isn't being pointed at you but at your culture? Are you so protective of your culture, so blind that you can't take that second to keep your trap shut and realize "other races have it tough sometimes" isn't a personal attack on you? What is there to be defensive about if you're doing your part to end racism? If you're not doing your part, couldn't you be trying a little harder?

Honestly, these students should have to fill out a permission slip to sit in on a lecture like this. Don't want anyone's feelings getting hurt because they're too intellectually immature to take part in an adult conversation.

It's wrong. Theres nothing to be proud of. We've done good, but, the good is overshadowed and rightfully so, by all the horrors we've done. As a white man I apologize for this, and it's just another grim reminder of the state of racial affairs in this country.

I find this mindset disturbing.

 

[IHaveCandy]

...yeah, I disagree there. They want to meet people with a similar cultural background. Obviously racists could use it too. You've clearly projected a nefarious motivation onto that meet up site while you're unable to do so with a phrase with such blindingly obvious intentions as "white pride".

Ok, it was wrong of me to say "majority". That was really reaching. But still, I'd like that point to stand with that word removed. Again, the white site would be from an American city with a lower white population, so I don't think it can be quickly assumed the site is less necessary.

 

[IHaveCandy]

Clearly someone brimming with pride over his "whiteness."

Sounds to me like he or she is saying "Yeah I guess I'm proud to be white, sure." I don't think we ever said that only the highly enthused "white power!" people are the only ones that count in this.

 

[shanshan310]

The actual person said he did but didn't really have a reason for it.

Sorry, it's hard to think:/

I didn't really feel proud about it or notice it at all until people started pointing it out. Take that how you will.

Sounds to me like he or she is saying "Yeah I guess I'm proud to be white, sure." I don't think we ever said that only the highly enthused "white power!" people are the only ones that count in this.

Yeah this.

 

[Mumei]

PSA: shanshan is a girl.

 

[IHaveCandy]

What city would need a site like that in America?

You really don't think there are cities in America that have a much lower white population? I mean, I don't think I'm really reaching with that claim.

 

[shanshan310]

PSA: shanshan is a girl.

;.; thank-you. I keep wondering if they were actually talking about me...