What is the world coming to!

[ChiTownScion]

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.

This is why I think it's prudent to wait 20 years after completion of his term(s) before undertaking any serious evaluation of a US President's performance. The prudence or folly of any given act by the chief executive can only be weighed in the long term. I don't want this to be seen as a political comment: merely an appreciation for the importance of historical context.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I've mentioned before the Pillar of Our Community, a Respected Businessman and Model Citizen who, the year after receiving the Townsperson of The Year award from the local chamber of commerce, and after retiring with great honor from his longstanding position as chairman of the local Community Chest, was discovered to have embezzled over four million dollars in charity money to sustain his Respectable Businessman Lifestyle over a span of fourteen years. The discovery came less than a month after his retirement, and the very man who praised him to the skies a month earlier was forced to stand in front of the press and tell the public that they'd been robbed blind by this man for a very long time.

He was sentenced to only four years in prison, because, you know, here in the Land of the Fee and the Home of the Knave, robbing four million dollars out of the pockets of poor people is a far less serious crime than knocking over a convenience store for beer and lottery tickets.

 

[sheeplady]

Some of it is incredibly far fetched, like the yoga class being canceled at a university at Canada (which if it was taught like any yoga class I ever attended) was likely not specifically taking advantage of any disenfranchised cultures in any real way... yoga has been so removed from the spiritual aspects of the practice and been wrapped so long in consumeristic culture that boat sailed decades ago and most yogis have no idea of the spiritual ideas behind yoga.

One of the colleges coming under fire is Ithaca College. Ithaca College has a recently new president. He has a bad habit of introducing shiny new initiatives about every year- initiatives that haven't been "tested" with the college community or in any way vetted beyond his office. It is top down management at it's worst, most of these don't fit at all with the culture of the college. Worse, they require a realignment and allocation of resources... which then change six months later when the latest initiative is announced. It's like trying to sail a boat with a compass that changes it's mind what direction is due north every five seconds.

In this context, there's been a number of events that have made students very uncomfortable. At the announcement of a new initiative, a person of color alumni panelist said she had "savage hunger." Another panelist, and then the moderator, began referring to her as a "savage." She tries to correct them and is visibly and audibly uncomfortable, and is drowned out by her fellow panelist and moderator saying that it is really a "compliment." This was at a university sanctioned event introducing a new initiative. The president (Rochon) and his office did nothing. No apologies, no recognition that this was wrong, etc. There's also been several other blunders in regards to race- all of which point to the fact that the president is out of touch with the campus.

Many students and faculty are calling for the president to resign. There's a vote of no confidence occurring with the student body right now, with most of the faculty supporting a faculty vote of no confidence going forward. This is not a small faction of the students, faculty, and staff, but a large number.

As far as the president's role in all of this, I think any leader is responsible for the atmosphere in their organization. You can't hide your head in the sand and say it is someone else's fault- *everything* that happens on your watch is your responsibility, period. You cannot control what people say or do that work for you, but you have total control over rewards and punishment of those individuals. As they say, as the leader, you're out front taking the bullets first. If you don't want that, then don't take command.

As far as the other protests, I will say this: I believe anyone who says defacing someone else's property with a swastika drawn in feces is "free speech" is a racist. I really don't understand how some people think that these college students are "overly sensitive" because they don't want hate symbols drawn on their campuses. The less swastikas I see in my everyday life, the better. And when people lump all these college students together as "whiners," you're saying someone feeling threatened by swastikas and threats made to "shoot all the black students" is just being a "whiner."

 

[AmateisGal]

As far as the other protests, I will say this: I believe anyone who says defacing someone else's property with a swastika drawn in feces is "free speech" is a racist. I really don't understand how some people think that these college students are "overly sensitive" because they don't want hate symbols drawn on their campuses. The less swastikas I see in my everyday life, the better. And when people lump all these college students together as "whiners," you're saying someone feeling threatened by swastikas and threats made to "shoot all the black students" is just being a "whiner."

It was revealed that the person who said "shoot all the black students" was actually black himself. From what I read, it was a one-off comment, one he didn't think would get the attention it did. To be clear: such a comment should absolutely be met with the utmost condemnation, and action should be taken in such a circumstance.

Swastikas - yes, you use them, you're a racist, IMO. No argument there.

We have a tendency in this day and age to lump everyone together. It's wrong. But let me be clear: I am most certainly not lumping all college students together as "whiners." Not at all. But there *is* a group of college students who take the smallest thing - what they perceive to be a microaggression or whatever - and become whiners. Did you read what I posted about the Halloween costumes email? There was *nothing* in the email sent around that should have resulted in the response it got - i.e. people being spit on, the professor being verbally insulted by a young woman, and much, much more. I'm speaking specifically about bullying and intimidation tactics these kids are using to make their point. Yes, there are injustices. Yes, they can fight against them. But attacking people who are on their side, who are making valid, points about the issue, who may have a different view than the kids, are being crucified for it. It boils down to this: a lot of these kids do not want to have their ideas challenged, and if they are and it makes them feel offended, they lash out through bullying and intimidation tactics. A professor can lose his job for offering a viewpoint that isn't what the kids think is the right viewpoint.

Higher ed is supposed to expose you to new ideas, new ways of thinking, of looking at the world. You can challenge those ideas - but bullying and intimidating the people who hold those ideas? That's childish.

That's what I'm upset about. This is a dangerous groupthink mentality that often translates to a mob mentality. It's thought police.

I'd like to know what kids who currently embrace this type of ideology will do once they are out of college and in the workplace. If their boss criticizes them, says something they might perceive as a "microaggression" (when the boss has literally no idea that's what he did), what are they going to do? The real world isn't college. The real world is not fair - it has never been and it never will be. Utopia doesn't exist. It never will. Yes, try to make the world a better place. But if you're going to become worse than what you're fighting against, is it worth it? What are you accomplishing?

 

[LizzieMaine]

For whatever it's worth, I deal with a lot of kids just out of college -- a good part of my staff/family from work is composed of such, and I've never run into any problems with them on that count. Sometimes they'll roll their eyes if I slip up out of force of old habit and use some outmoded form of language but even though they're all strong social-conscience types, none of them seem to have any trouble functioning in the real world. One of them graduated from Smith last year, one of the more militant schools in terms of social conscience, and even though she's even leftier than I am, she's also one of the most well-adjusted, good-humored people I know.

Meanwhile, another perspective from The Atlantic on the "microaggression" thing, which for some reason hasn't gotten anywhere near the "viral" attention as the original article.

 

[Inkstainedwretch]

I went to college in the '60s-early 70s, when American universities were at their most uproarious. But at that time the protests and demonstrations weren't about what was going on inside the college but what was transpiring in the outside world: the Vietnam war, the Civil Rights movement, free speech, politics, etc. Much was jejeune and immature and naive, but it was engaged with the world at large, not focused on the hothouse environment the school. Getting bashed over the head by a cop's baton was a badge of honor. There were no "safe spaces"in a good campus riot. I miss that time.

 

[AmateisGal]

Many "microaggressions" are not "aggressions" at all, but people saying things that they don't even know might be offensive. Saying, "Oh, I have a dog with the same name as you" is most certainly not saying, "Oh, you're a dog." That's making a colossal mountain of a minute molehill. I mean, good grief. I have a co-worker who has a dog with the same name as my daughter, and I've told her, "I love that name. That's the name I gave my daughter." No insult, just a love for a name.

Now are there people who deliberately insult others? Of course. Are there people who take digs at other people? Yes. Will you ever be able to stop those people from making those digs or insulting others? Some, yes. All of them? No. Again, the world isn't fair, it never will be, and a utopia simply does not and will not exist. Yes, keep hoping and working for a better world. But recognize reality: there are people who simply will refuse to conform to the ideas of social justice.

 

[AmateisGal]

For whatever it's worth, I deal with a lot of kids just out of college -- a good part of my staff/family from work is composed of such, and I've never run into any problems with them on that count. Sometimes they'll roll their eyes if I slip up out of force of old habit and use some outmoded form of language but even though they're all strong social-conscience types, none of them seem to have any trouble functioning in the real world. One of them graduated from Smith last year, one of the more militant schools in terms of social conscience, and even though she's even leftier than I am, she's also one of the most well-adjusted, good-humored people I know.

Meanwhile, another perspective from The Atlantic on the "microaggression" thing, which for some reason hasn't gotten anywhere near the "viral" attention as the original article.

I'm very glad that there are those college kids who are well-adjusted and good-humored. I have no doubt that the majority of these kids will be just fine. But it's those who are very militant that I worry about. I don't know what the percentage is, and really, it doesn't matter. I just fear they are going to have an awfully rude awakening when they get into the workforce - unless they stay in academia.

 

[sheeplady]

So, I think a couple of points, which aren't necessarily disagreement, but some free-thought: I don't think that "college" isn't the real world. Colleges are highly political spheres where even small things can be hotly contested, they are increasingly run as businesses (and they do make the money) as opposed to "ivory towers," and they aren't bastions of "post-racial" society either. You can say that it's a "different world" but no more so different than working in the tech industry is different than working in the hospitality industry. I think it's a great disservice to say "real world" versus "college" given the fact that colleges are looking more like businesses, for better or for worse. And the vast majority of students today work, volunteer, etc. while in college; which very much mirrors life outside of college.

Some of the most racist, sexist, and classist behavior I've ever witnessed in my life occurred in the university environment. I don't trust that the professor who tells the graduate student about how they shouldn't study "those people" isn't the king or queen of playing innocent but really doing purposeful microaggressions in the classroom against "those people."

I actually teach a class designed for master's students and I address "prejudice in the workplace" as one of my units. I have students throw in (anonymously) situations into a hat and then we work through what happened, what we can learn from the situation, and what we would do in such a situation. We also do roleplays of various "classic" situations. While I do agree that some of this microaggression behavior IS innocent, it's innocent only in the ignorant way.

Given the fact that there is a push for universities to be "run more like businesses" and be "profitable" and even hire administrators from the business world, we shouldn't be surprised students are demanding things. When you treat your students like paying customers and your university like a business, don't be surprised when your customers demand better service.

 

[sheeplady]

Many "microaggressions" are not "aggressions" at all, but people saying things that they don't even know might be offensive. Saying, "Oh, I have a dog with the same name as you" is most certainly not saying, "Oh, you're a dog." That's making a colossal mountain of a minute molehill. I mean, good grief. I have a co-worker who has a dog with the same name as my daughter, and I've told her, "I love that name. That's the name I gave my daughter." No insult, just a love for a name.

But I think "I named my dog the same thing" is a lot different than some of the worst microaggressions, like:
"Where are you *really* from?"
"What's your ancestory?"
"What do you mean, you spoke English at home?"
"You need to pick an American name, your name is too complicated."
"Your English is really good for [race.]"
"Does your family eat tacos every night? (replace with any sterotype- curry, fried chicken and collards, lasagna)
"Oh, I don't think of you as a black person."
"Oh, you're really nice for a black person."
"Can you tell us what all [people of your race] think about X?"
"Can you explain why [people of your race] are [stereotype]?"
"Can I touch your hair?" [or worse, just feeling it]

Those are really quite ignorant things to say. We should really be trying to be better as a society about those things. Assuming people who aren't white weren't born here (even if they speak perfect American English), needing to know where every Asian person is from (country wise), and asking people to speak for their entire race are the sorts of behaviors we should be trying to avoid.

 

[AmateisGal]

But I think "I named my dog the same thing" is a lot different than some of the worst microaggressions, like:
"Where are you *really* from?"
"What's your ancestory?"
"What do you mean, you spoke English at home?"
"You need to pick an American name, your name is too complicated."
"Your English is really good for [race.]"
"Does your family eat tacos every night? (replace with any sterotype- curry, fried chicken and collards, lasagna)
"Oh, I don't think of you as a black person."
"Oh, you're really nice for a black person."
"Can you tell us what all [people of your race] think about X?"
"Can you explain why [people of your race] are [stereotype]?"
"Can I touch your hair?" [or worse, just feeling it]

Those are really quite ignorant things to say. We should really be trying to be better as a society about those things. Assuming people who aren't white weren't born here (even if they speak perfect American English), needing to know where every Asian person is from (country wise), and asking people to speak for their entire race are the sorts of behaviors we should be trying to avoid.

Agreed that the "dog name" example is a poor one of a true microaggression. But that's what the writer of The Atlantic article led off with and called a microagression, and I think she was wrong to do so.

As I said, yes, there are definitely people who deliberately (and sometimes ignorantly) make these remarks. Trying to better society is always a worthy goal. I'm just simply saying that we will never get everyone to stop doing it.

 

[AmateisGal]

So, I think a couple of points, which aren't necessarily disagreement, but some free-thought: I don't think that "college" isn't the real world. Colleges are highly political spheres where even small things can be hotly contested, they are increasingly run as businesses (and they do make the money) as opposed to "ivory towers," and they aren't bastions of "post-racial" society either. You can say that it's a "different world" but no more so different than working in the tech industry is different than working in the hospitality industry. I think it's a great disservice to say "real world" versus "college" given the fact that colleges are looking more like businesses, for better or for worse. And the vast majority of students today work, volunteer, etc. while in college; which very much mirrors life outside of college.

Some of the most racist, sexist, and classist behavior I've ever witnessed in my life occurred in the university environment. I don't trust that the professor who tells the graduate student about how they shouldn't study "those people" isn't the king or queen of playing innocent but really doing purposeful microaggressions in the classroom against "those people."

I actually teach a class designed for master's students and I address "prejudice in the workplace" as one of my units. I have students throw in (anonymously) situations into a hat and then we work through what happened, what we can learn from the situation, and what we would do in such a situation. We also do roleplays of various "classic" situations. While I do agree that some of this microaggression behavior IS innocent, it's innocent only in the ignorant way.

Given the fact that there is a push for universities to be "run more like businesses" and be "profitable" and even hire administrators from the business world, we shouldn't be surprised students are demanding things. When you treat your students like paying customers and your university like a business, don't be surprised when your customers demand better service.

I come from this at a different angle. I work at a university, but I am not a faculty member (I'm staff), and when I compare my job now to my past jobs, I can definitely tell the difference in terms of, for lack of a better phrase, "political correctness." In staff meetings and coworker interactions, I am constantly on edge, worried about what to say, how to say it, how it will be perceived, etc. I do not discuss my politics or my religion because, simply put, it will not be taken well. However, those who do not share my politics or religion have absolutely zero problem sharing their ideas/thoughts/opinions because it is the "accepted" ideology at the university. I didn't have to deal with this at my last two jobs. Now it's not like I hide who I am because I am not that type of person. If they ask, I'll tell. But let's just say I don't broadcast it.

And to speak to your last point: I don't have a problem with requesting/demanding better "service." But the way one goes about requesting/demanding said services is my whole argument. Intimidation and bullying tactics are not the answer.

 

[sheeplady]

Agreed that the "dog name" example is a poor one of a true microaggression. But that's what the writer of The Atlantic article led off with and called a microagression, and I think she was wrong to do so.

As I said, yes, there are definitely people who deliberately (and sometimes ignorantly) make these remarks. Trying to better society is always a worthy goal. I'm just simply saying that we will never get everyone to stop doing it.

I think probably leading off with "hey- I named my dog that name!" is a little impolite when you are introduced to someone. I have such an unusual "old world" name that I normally get, "my mother was named..." so my context in this is a little biased because people don't name their dogs traditional old-world names. I wouldn't be offended if someone told me immediately they named their dog the same name... but I'd be a little leery of their social skills from the get-go. It's one thing to say, "Oh, I've always loved your name. I loved it so much I named my dog this name, would you like to see a picture" at some point in the conversation, but not right off. Save it for the second time you meet.

I do understand what you are getting at. I had a professor (who was a freaking jerk, I will add) that went off on a political rampage at a fellow freshman and then spent the entire semester making little needling remarks at the person, indirectly, over some perceived slight. It was highly unprofessional and unbecoming and one of the negative examples of how I teach. I often present viewpoints that are the opposite of mine to keep my students guessing. For instance, when I speak about the pharmaceutical industry I present both my view as a patient but also the view of someone who runs a pharmaceutical company in regards to how they price drugs. I don't want to convert my students to my political viewpoint by bashing them over the head. Even if I thought converting them *was* part of my job description, I sure as heck wouldn't do it by bashing them over the head. (I think protests are a different animal, but I teach, not protest.)

I don't present any views I consider racist, or ist of any kind. I do my best to encourage different viewpoints and make my students feel listened to, but I don't tolerate ist behavior or disrespectful behavior in my classroom.

 

[AmateisGal]

I think probably leading off with "hey- I named my dog that name!" is a little impolite when you are introduced to someone. I have such an unusual "old world" name that I normally get, "my mother was named..." so my context in this is a little biased because people don't name their dogs traditional old-world names. I wouldn't be offended if someone told me immediately they named their dog the same name... but I'd be a little leery of their social skills from the get-go. It's one thing to say, "Oh, I've always loved your name. I loved it so much I named my dog this name, would you like to see a picture" at some point in the conversation, but not right off. Save it for the second time you meet.

I do understand what you are getting at. I had a professor (who was a freaking jerk, I will add) that went off on a political rampage at a fellow freshman and then spent the entire semester making little needling remarks at the person, indirectly, over some perceived slight. It was highly unprofessional and unbecoming and one of the negative examples of how I teach. I often present viewpoints that are the opposite of mine to keep my students guessing. For instance, when I speak about the pharmaceutical industry I present both my view as a patient but also the view of someone who runs a pharmaceutical company in regards to how they price drugs. I don't want to convert my students to my political viewpoint by bashing them over the head. Even if I thought converting them *was* part of my job description, I sure as heck wouldn't do it by bashing them over the head. (I think protests are a different animal, but I teach, not protest.)

I don't present any views I consider racist, or ist of any kind. I do my best to encourage different viewpoints and make my students feel listened to, but I don't tolerate ist behavior or disrespectful behavior in my classroom.

Sheeplady, I love that you present both sides and keep your students guessing. That is the way to do it! I remember when I was in graduate school, one of my history professors also went off on a tirade against the current president and I was sitting there thinking, uh, what does this have to do with anything? One of the students actually piped up and asked that same question. The subject was dropped. But I do think from there on out, I was always a bit wary of classroom discussions.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The thing about microaggression that makes it so insiduous is that it's *not* intentional -- if it were, it would be macroaggression. The whole point of bringing it to the attention of those who commit it is to try and get them to consider how unconscious privilege affects daily life across class, racial, or cultural lines. That's very much a valid subject for "higher education" if you ask me, because there's plenty of it in the real world, and learning to identify it can help to clarify exactly what goes on behind the surface of everyday intergroup relations.

I didn't need to go to college to be taught that all interactions, between social groups or between individuals, are governed by a very intricate, subconscious intersection of power and privilege. I learned that simply from observing how people and groups actually do interact in the real world. Those dynamics are concrete and real, conscious or not, and they affect practically every interaction we have.

Some years ago we showed, as part of some academic film festival, a documentary about an elderly janitor who worked at some high-end college or other. A group of film students followed him around the campus documenting every step of his routine, interviewing him about his life, and so on and on. As I was emptying garbage cans in the lobby after the show, some well-heeled academic woman came up to me and said "Great film, wasn't it. You must've found it inspiring." I put down my bag of garbage and looked her in the eye and told her, in my thickest Maine accent, that I actually found it rather patronizing. "Working people," I explained, "don't particularly need bourgeois validation to feel good about themselves." She wasn't trying to be offensive, but her attitude revealed certain assumptions about class interaction that I couldn't let pass without comment. As the kids like to say, "dude -- check your privilege!"

 

[Harp]

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.

I was raised on Chicago's south side Lizzie. This is nothing.

 

[LizzieMaine]

None so blind...

 

[Harp]

None so blind...

...myopic me.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Don't look back, America. Something might be gaining on you.

 

[sheeplady]

I don't understand why it always has to become a you-know-what match between who had it worst.

I don't feel the need to get into a peeing match with anybody who's complaining of racism, sexism, classism, ableism, etc. It's so often a contest to see who's got it worse.

When somebody comes to me and says, "I'm hurt!" Why do we feel the need to say, "I had it just as hard! No worse! Nah-nah-nah, your struggles are invalidated by the fact I struggled."

I actually don't want people to have my childhood, my troubles, or my illness/ disability. And if they do or have other things happening, less or worse or the same, I draw on my experiences for compassion.