What is the world coming to!

[AmateisGal]

I just don't see that happening. Whatever happens on campus, and however it happens, the internet is alive with every opinion under the sun, and you'll find young people running the gamut from ultra-Randites to ultra-Marxists, and every point in between. Any opinion that can be *genuinely* suppressed by a gang of shouty nineteen-year-olds probably isn't held with much conviction to begin with.

I don't think the ability to have an opinion will be suppressed - it is the potential consequences of having a different opinion that bother me. As I said earlier, when you lose your job because you have a different opinion, or are hunted down via social media with your personal information splashed all over the Internet so that you can be bullied and receive death threats for an OPINION, that is the problem. And that is what is happening. To me, that has nothing to do with social justice or fighting institutional racism.

 

[AmateisGal]

This is an example of what I'm talking about:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...tolerance-of-student-activism-at-yale/414810/

 

[Harp]

The student coin holds slight currency excepting its swinish behavior and intolerance. A mirror held to administrators and faculty. And parents.
As to the Left, perhaps some soul searching may result.

 

[AmateisGal]

The student coin holds slight currency excepting its swinish behavior and intolerance. A mirror held to administrators and faculty. And parents.
As to the Left, perhaps some soul searching may result.

I hope so. The chickens have indeed come home to roost in a lot of ways.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Read the Washington Post story linked in the Atlantic article -- the Halloween thing is merely a part of a bigger picture on how racial minorities are being treated at what has historically been one of the dominant hives of white male privilege in America.

Isaiah Genece, a junior, said he has never had a black professor at Yale. Nearly a dozen black students described the experience of being the sole black person in a class, and the unequal responsibilities foisted on them to speak on behalf of their race.

I don't imagine that any too many of us white folks here have ever had that particular experience, or can understand precisely what it's like to have to speak for "all white people" on some issue or other. That's the gulf that's got to be breached.

And if you take the students at their word, there's more than enough bullying to go around.

 

[AmateisGal]

Read the Washington Post story linked in the Atlantic article -- the Halloween thing is merely a part of a bigger picture on how racial minorities are being treated at what has historically been one of the dominant hives of white male privilege in America.

I don't imagine that any too many of us white folks here have ever had that particular experience, or can understand precisely what it's like to have to speak for "all white people" on some issue or other. That's the gulf that's got to be breached.

And if you take the students at their word, there's more than enough bullying to go around.

Lizzie, I am not denying that there are problems and that this racism exists; I never have in this entire discussion. What I am arguing against is how these students are reacting to it. There was nothing in the email that professor sent around to justify these students' call for this couple to be removed from their position at their university.

Here are the paragraphs that I am specifically directing my comments at:

"Those who purport to speak for marginalized students at elite colleges sometimes expose serious shortcomings in the way that their black, brown, or Asian classmates are treated, and would expose flaws in the way that religious students and ideological conservatives are treated too if they cared to speak up for those groups. I’ve known many Californians who found it hard to adjust to life in the Ivy League, where a faction of highly privileged kids acculturated at elite prep schools still set the tone of a decidedly East Coast culture. All else being equal, outsiders who also feel like racial or ethnic “others” typically walk the roughest road of all.

That may well be true at Yale.

But none of that excuses the Yale activists who’ve bullied these particular faculty in recent days. They’re behaving more like Reddit parodies of “social-justice warriors” than coherent activists, and I suspect they will look back on their behavior with chagrin. The purpose of writing about their missteps now is not to condemn these students. Their young lives are tremendously impressive by any reasonable measure. They are unfortunate to live in an era in which the normal mistakes of youth are unusually visible. To keep the focus where it belongs I won’t be naming any of them here.

The focus belongs on the flawed ideas that they’ve absorbed."

And the last paragraph of the piece:

"These students were offended by one person’s words, and were free to offer their own words in turn. That wasn’t enough for them, so they spat on different people who listened to those words and called one minority student a traitor to his race. In their muddled ideology, the Yale activists had to destroy the safe space to save it."

I won't defend actions like this. These are actions of petulant children. If you spit on me because I am listening to someone talk, or I am the one talking, you have crossed the line.

And yes, I know that minorities have endured being spit on and much, much worse. So does that mean it's okay if they are the ones now doing the spitting? Does that justify it? Not to me it doesn't.

 

[LizzieMaine]

And I'm not defending anybody spitting. There's a time and a place to spit, and when it comes, you know it.

What I'm saying is that people -- and I'm not referring to you, because I know you don't do this -- who dismiss every complaint anyone has with OMG PC PC PC PC screeds on the Internet are only perpetuating the problem. And an awful lot of what I do read about this sort of thing falls into that category -- reactionary white people who can't acknowledge that any concerns these kids have might be legitimate because they hate the idea that anyone dares to question any aspect of their cultural hegemony.

 

[AmateisGal]

And I'm not defending anybody spitting. There's a time and a place to spit, and when it comes, you know it.

What I'm saying is that people -- and I'm not referring to you, because I know you don't do this -- who dismiss every complaint anyone has with OMG PC PC PC PC screeds on the Internet are only perpetuating the problem. And an awful lot of what I do read about this sort of thing falls into that category -- reactionary white people who hate the idea that anyone dares to question any aspect of their cultural hegemony.

Yes, this exists - I have seen it (the reactionary white people, PC-centric, etc.). However, this isn't all about white privilege and racism and the discussion surrounding that. This is very much a "precious snowflake" mentality, as well. The discussion on "safe spaces" is one that will literally have you rolling your eyeballs after awhile. In this type of culture, *everyone* is a victim; microaggressions can be almost anything; and if you don't conform to the prevailing group thing, you are ostracized and shunned. Speaking your mind, having different opinions, etc., is getting harder and harder to do largely because we don't know what's "safe" anymore. That is the culture being perpetrated on a lot of college campuses. As I said, I work at a major university and I see this all the dang time.

On a larger scale, what are these kids going to do when they get into the work force? What if their boss utters a "microaggression" and doesn't know it? What if he/she says something that hurts their feelings or has an opinion contrary to theirs? How will they react? On a college campus, they're being taught that it's perfectly ok to go and tell someone that you've had your feelings hurt, to demand an apology, to call for the professor's dismissal, etc. But in the workforce, what are they going to do?

Bottom line: these kids so engaged in all of this are going to have a very hard time in the real world. And that's probably the saddest part of all with this whole issue.

 

[Harp]

"Those who purport to speak for marginalized students at elite colleges sometimes expose serious shortcomings in the way that their black, brown, or Asian classmates are treated, and would expose flaws in the way that religious students and ideological conservatives are treated too if they cared to speak up for those groups. I’ve known many Californians who found it hard to adjust to life in the Ivy League, where a faction of highly privileged kids acculturated at elite prep schools still set the tone of a decidedly East Coast culture. All else being equal, outsiders who also feel like racial or ethnic “others” typically walk the roughest road of all.

That may well be true at Yale.

But none of that excuses the Yale activists who’ve bullied these particular faculty in recent days. They’re behaving more like Reddit parodies of “social-justice warriors” than coherent activists, and I suspect they will look back on their behavior with chagrin. ...

Racial bias is a campus reality, the campus being a reflection of society; however, to paint the university with its broad brush and to decry
'white male privilege' is nonsense. Nonsense that is not only tolerated but encouraged within and without. Race baiting is alive and well
and its practice is condoned at the highest levels of American government. Little wonder then that incidents have occurred that spark such fierce debate.
Hopefully, reason will prevail and a more rational approach taken. Whatever occurs on campus here-real or imagined- the international scope of human
nature clearly eclipses, and this staged college drama production seems comical by comparison.

 

[LizzieMaine]

to decry
'white male privilege' is nonsense.

A well measured response, except for the above. A privileged white male doesn't have a lot of credibility in declaring that white male privilege is nonsense.

 

[Harp]

A well measured response, except for the above. A privileged white male doesn't get to decide that questioning white male privilege is nonsense.

The only privilege this white male ever received was a draft letter and a one way ticket to Vietnam.
And all else was earned.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Ever been pulled over for "driving while black?" Ever been catcalled just for the simple act of walking down the street? Ever been redlined by an insurance company? Ever been called a c*nt to your face on the Fedora Lounge? No, and you never will. Because you have white male privilege.

 

[ChiTownScion]

Out of my group of friends in High School, I think only myself and another one of my friends ever went to college. The rest of us ended up in trade school, or joining the military.

My class had nearly 400, all male, and all but one went on to college. His dad passed away his senior year, and left him a heating & air conditioning business. As the place touted its program as "college prep," that really isn't too surprising.

At the reunions, we have one guy who is a union carpenter, a few cops, and one firefighter who ended up (for a while, anyway) being the youngest battalion chief in Chicago history. I doubt if you could throw a golf ball into the gathering and not hit a lawyer, physician, or MBA. One of our class clowns got extremely wealthy in investment managements, and serves as chairman of trustees for the place: if you knew him at 14, "irony" doesn't even begin to describe that twist of fate.

 

[Retired EE]

But isn't the better course, even if you don't like their methods, to simply be willing *listen* to what they're saying and try to understand it, rather than, as a lot of people do nowadays, stick your fingers in your ears and yell PC PC PC PC, and conclude that they've got nothing to be angry about? Isn't that the very embodiment of the sort of privilege they denounce -- the refusal to acknowledge that anyone could possibly have a legitimate grievance against whatever system is under discussion? Brings to mind Malcolm X's comment about how the America of his time not only hadn't pulled the knife out of the back of a tenth of its citizens, it refused to even acknowledge that the knife is there. There's a lot of that still with us to this day.

Sometimes apologies aren't a bad idea. For example, Woodrow Wilson did more than any man of his generation to perpetuate, as a matter of formal policy, Jim Crow in government, and the effects were felt long, long after his death. If chiseling his name off a building might help to heal old wounds even just a little, I'll gladly strike the first blow myself.

Re your comment on Woodrow Wilson, chiseling names off buildings and monuments, defacing images, and erasing memories for political reasons ("Damnatio Memoriae" - Condemnation of Memory) has a long history. For a historical discussion and examples see following link:

http://historum.com/general-history/26408-damnatio-memoriae-condemnation-memory.html

 

[LizzieMaine]

In general I don't believe we should be building monuments to anyone, naming things in their honor, or otherwise creating idols for ourselves, until at least several generations have come and gone from the death of the honoree. A lot of people who rushed to honor individuals like Joe Paterno or Jimmy Savile, to name a couple of recent egregious examples, had to do a lot of fast and embarassing backtracking when the truth about those men came to light. Not all the historical embarassments are that grotesque, of course, but I don't think the generation that actually experienced the individual in question is in any real position to put him or her into any real historical context. Wait fifty or a hundred years to see if the person is truly worthy of the honor.

I'll cite all the "Warren G. Harding Schools" around the country as another unfortunate example of an honor that was probably a very good bit hastier than historical context warrants.

 

[Retired EE]

In general I don't believe we should be building monuments to anyone, naming things in their honor, or otherwise creating idols for ourselves, until at least several generations have come and gone from the death of the honoree. A lot of people who rushed to honor individuals like Joe Paterno or Jimmy Savile, to name a couple of recent egregious examples, had to do a lot of fast and embarassing backtracking when the truth about those men came to light. Not all the historical embarassments are that grotesque, of course, but I don't think the generation that actually experienced the individual in question is in any real position to put him or her into any real historical context. Wait fifty or a hundred years to see if the person is truly worthy of the honor.

I'll cite all the "Warren G. Harding Schools" around the country as another unfortunate example of an honor that was probably a very good bit hastier than historical context warrants.

One might think that after about 70 generations an honoree's monument (and world heritage site) would be safe from damnatio memoriae, and the person would have, by now, been non controversial.

I guess not to everyone , though.

 

[Fading Fast]

In general I don't believe we should be building monuments to anyone, naming things in their honor, or otherwise creating idols for ourselves, until at least several generations have come and gone from the death of the honoree. A lot of people who rushed to honor individuals like Joe Paterno or Jimmy Savile, to name a couple of recent egregious examples, had to do a lot of fast and embarassing backtracking when the truth about those men came to light. Not all the historical embarassments are that grotesque, of course, but I don't think the generation that actually experienced the individual in question is in any real position to put him or her into any real historical context. Wait fifty or a hundred years to see if the person is truly worthy of the honor.

I'll cite all the "Warren G. Harding Schools" around the country as another unfortunate example of an honor that was probably a very good bit hastier than historical context warrants.

I think waiting a few generation makes tremendous sense. And maybe just not doing it is the way to go. The alternative is to accept two things that we seem unable to except today - (1) all humans are flawed and very few of our heroes didn't and don't also have some very human flaws and (2) we should think about how we are all shaped by the cultural norms of our own day and time period and not fully judge other generations and time periods based on our moral standards today.

I am more in favor of waiting a few generations for some perspective and for the emotions of the moment to fade, but I don't mind that our heroes are flawed. I think there is a great lesson in that for kids (and adults): keep trying, recognized no ones perfect, recognize that even the most successful also get some things very wrong, don't be so quick to judge others' flaws absolutely, and (and we really don't do this one well at all) have some understanding of the cultural and social norms of the time before you denounce with compete conviction and passion what someone did "back then." Even our most socially conscious people, our most passionate rebels, our most forward-thinkers today will probably fail on some points based on the standards 100 years forward when looked back upon by that 100-years-out generation.

 

[AmateisGal]

I think waiting a few generation makes tremendous sense. And maybe just not doing it is the way to go. The alternative is to accept two things that we seem unable to except today - (1) all humans are flawed and very few of our heroes didn't and don't also have some very human flaws and (2) we should think about how we are all shaped by the cultural norms of our own day and time period and not fully judge other generations and time periods based on our moral standards today.

I am more in favor of waiting a few generations for some perspective and for the emotions of the moment to fade, but I don't mind that our heroes are flawed. I think there is a great lesson in that for kids (and adults): keep trying, recognized no ones perfect, recognize that even the most successful also get some things very wrong, don't be so quick to judge others' flaws absolutely, and (and we really don't do this one well at all) have some understanding of the cultural and social norms of the time before you denounce with compete conviction and passion what someone did "back then." Even our most socially conscious people, our most passionate rebels, our most forward-thinkers today will probably fail on some points based on the standards 100 years forward when looked back upon by that 100-years-out generation.

I agree. We all have flaws. Teaching our children this is absolutely vital - and it's especially vital to teach them that our leaders have flaws. There are far too many people that put our leaders on pedestals and refuse to acknowledge those flaws.

 

[Bushman]

In general I don't believe we should be building monuments to anyone, naming things in their honor, or otherwise creating idols for ourselves, until at least several generations have come and gone from the death of the honoree. A lot of people who rushed to honor individuals like Joe Paterno or Jimmy Savile, to name a couple of recent egregious examples, had to do a lot of fast and embarassing backtracking when the truth about those men came to light. Not all the historical embarassments are that grotesque, of course, but I don't think the generation that actually experienced the individual in question is in any real position to put him or her into any real historical context. Wait fifty or a hundred years to see if the person is truly worthy of the honor.

I'll cite all the "Warren G. Harding Schools" around the country as another unfortunate example of an honor that was probably a very good bit hastier than historical context warrants.

That reminds me of a local story that's been going on for the past few months. An Army vet and officer of the law Joe Gliniewicz was presumed shot by three men, which then led the county on a massive manhunt for the criminals. Something like 3 helicopters, 70-something men, and 11 K-9 units spent about 3 weeks searching for the suspects that Gliniewicz described over the radio before dying. Eventually they were called off, but Gliniewicz was still hailed as a hero by the news, cops, and everybody else: a family man who was mere weeks from retirement. At least, until the truth came out. Apparently, Gliniewicz killed himself and made it look like a murder because he was afraid his boss had caught him in a money laundering scheme from a children's charity. He also had plans to frame his boss with a bag of coke, and it's apparent that the wife and eldest son was also in on the scheme. Suffice to say that it felt like a huge betrayal and it embarrassed every person to call the man a "hero" in the past months.

 

[ChiTownScion]

That reminds me of a local story that's been going on for the past few months. An Army vet and officer of the law Joe Gliniewicz was presumed shot by three men, which then led the county on a massive manhunt for the criminals. Something like 3 helicopters, 70-something men, and 11 K-9 units spent about 3 weeks searching for the suspects that Gliniewicz described over the radio before dying. Eventually they were called off, but Gliniewicz was still hailed as a hero by the news, cops, and everybody else: a family man who was mere weeks from retirement. At least, until the truth came out. Apparently, Gliniewicz killed himself and made it look like a suicide because he was afraid his boss had caught him in a money laundering scheme from a children's charity. He also had plans to frame his boss with a bag of coke, and it's apparent that the wife and eldest son was also in on the scheme. Suffice to say that it felt like a huge betrayal and it embarrassed every person to call the man a "hero" in the past months.

It also came out that his personnel file revealed years of misconduct including incidents of excessive force and sexual harassment. The 100 Club of Chicago, which donates regularly to the families of fallen police officers and firefighters, has asked the Gliniewicz family for the return of $15,000 donated to them. If evidence established that his family members were in on his misconduct, one only hopes that they will be prosecuted accordingly.