MCTC prof reprimanded for alienating white students during structural racism discussion

[deleted] · 2013-12-03T12:29:20+00:00

It was a couple of white male students that did something about it. Note: to young males in college these days you do not have to put up with this ideological...

[–]JakeDDrake 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

There's apparently a pretty ugly history of more or less overt racism in that place - including a noose being hung in the school paper newsroom. Their previous diversity director quit due to a hostile work environment - it's pretty clear that there's racism going on in this place.

It's absurd that she's being reprimanded for singling anyone out, as nothing suggests that she did, at least not based on anything I have been able to find online - including op-eds and articles by students at the institution (If she'd actually been harassing students in class and creating a scene, that would probably be well-known to students). Admittedly, we only have her account - but I see no reason to doubt her, especially as both the students and the institution have been unwilling to come forward. The students seem to have felt "singled out" by virtue of being white males - but to suggest that this implies a personal attack is absurd - that they then interrupt the class and draw attention to themselves is their own fault, and in no way constitutes harassment on any level. Any lecture on structural racism is going to include those things - and incidentally, the whole point of discussing and teaching structural racism is that these are often structural, not personal problems, that is to say, non-racists can do racist things, and when they do them together on a daily basis you get racist institutions. Hell, by the standard of personal attacks set forth here, any call for diversity (especially backed up by more than lip-service policies) is an attack on e.g. the members of a board or committee.

[+]Quarri 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Bartab 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JoshtheAspie 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]JoshtheAspie -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

Diversity directors literally work to ensure that institutions take actual steps towards inclusivity and diversity.

Right. Their job is to be racist and sexist. We're saying the same thing, but with different words.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, unless you think that acknowledging racism or sexism is inherently sexist

Sure there is. Affirmative action, or other actions taken specifically based on race or sex are inherently racist or sexist, respectively. In order to actively take steps "for diversity" requires you to act on the basis of sex or race. Thus, the job is inherently racist and sexist.

Now, if the job was "anti-racism ombudsman" or "anti-sexism ombudsman", and the ombudsman worked to stamp out all action that was taken based on race or sex, the job wouldn't be racist or sexist... but that's not the job we're talking about.

What we have now involves Asian kids being kicked out in favor of blacks, on the basis of race. That's oppressing one minority in favor of another.

[+][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

'Stamping out' sexism and racism requires a cultural change, and that cultural change revolves, in part, around the privileged acknowledging their privilege, acknowledging that they are part of racist and/or sexist institutions. What diversity directors actually do is suggest and plan ways for institutions to do something about these issues, which may or may not include quotas or what have you. But quotas are not inherently racist - if you are a night club owner and your bouncer is only letting white people in, you wouldn't be racist to tell him that he has to let some minorities get in once in a while, even though that would be 'acting on the basis of sex or race'. And if you owned a lot of nightclubs, the guy you hired to make sure that none of your bouncers were being racists wouldn't be a racist himself, either, nor would his position be inherently racist.

[–]JoshtheAspie 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]JoshtheAspie 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]edtastic -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

'Stamping out' sexism and racism requires a cultural change, and that cultural change revolves, in part, around the privileged acknowledging their privilege, acknowledging that they are part of racist and/or sexist institutions.

You assume these things are true when for the most part their a function of choices by individuals and no the institution as a whole or are a product of things that are neither sexist nor racist being interpreted as such by activist. Where you have a racist or sexist institution the legal recourse is how it ends up getting stamped out. Overt discrimination is illegal (except for men) and would put any public or private institution serving the public at risk. Historically we didn't stamp out racism by acknowledging privilege. That's a relatively recent addition to the public conversation on these matters. The law is what changed America. Don't get it twisted.

Quotas are inherently racists and sexists especially since their a function of institutional power. Any systematic discrimination by nature violated equal protection. In extreme circumstances it might be the only means to shift the culture but for the most part we see it applied to places where the total numbers of women or minorities don't meet up with the expectations of activists. We are a long way into the equality project and it's time we start applying principals universally or risk enabling enemies of equality in the future. The loop holes that are created can be used against the people those policies intended to help if public opinion shifts.

" if you are a night club owner and your bouncer is only letting white people in, you wouldn't be racist to tell him that he has to let some minorities get in once in a while, even though that would be 'acting on the basis of sex or race'."

What is the criteria being used by the bouncer? That is what the focus should be on instead of the quota. If they are not treating people fairly then that's the problem. A quota would be sugar coating that individuals racists selection process with another racists counter measure. Equality can protect everyone if we insists on equal treatment for all.

[–]JoshtheAspie 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[+]hellothere124 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]edtastic 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Marginalize is the wrong term. She was reprimanded for creating a hostile enviorment.

How did she marginalize anyone? Really..by teaching? Are you being marginalized by learning about the civil rights movement? How about slavery and the civil war?

The discussion of these things can lead to a hostile environment if the discussion is used as an excuse to assail individuals whose ancestry matches that of the villains in whichever story. The solution is to frame the story as one of human events and the bad behavior as a consequence of human nature. The fact a persons ancestry coincides with that of the bad actors does not make them part villain since any human alive today can have a villainous ancestor.

This is employing racial sensitivity universally and universality is crucial to principled implementation of equality.

[–]JoshtheAspie -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Well, let's take a look at the difference. Since you brought them up, I'll use Germans and nazis as a part of the illustration.

We rightly ascribe the horrible problems that occurred in WWII in Germany to Nazism (also known as National Socialism), not to "German-ness".

When having a discussion with or about Germans, we don't assign responsibility for the holocaust to a modern generation of Germans, removed by 2 generations from those horrible acts.

Here, the teacher is not talking about how racism and sexism are classes of horrible ideologies that anyone can ascribe to (see the leaders of the "New Black Panther" party that want to kill "crackers" and their babies). Rather, she is assigning the cause of problem to skin color and sex.

That's the difference.

She is directly participating in a harmfully racist and sexist ideology, and using her position of institutional power to do so.

Or, to illustrate the point with some snarky pith: The Nazis taught students as well. How could they possibly have marginalized the Jews by teaching?

[+]hellothere124 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Except she is NOT assigning the cause of the problem to skin color and sex, she is assigning the problem to remnants of the past, which still play a role in the current day. She is not holding these students personally responsible, She is also not holding "white people" as a group responsible, as they are also generations removed from individuals in the past whose ideologies and lets face it, racist beleifs, led to structural racism that still exists today. Unless I am mistaken, from my understanding of this event, it was a discussion on systemic racism that was taken a bit too personally. From everything I have seen on this, she did NOT single out individuals, nor she she single out groups ("white people are racist"). Again, if she did - I agree that is out of line and completely incorrect

[–]JoshtheAspie 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]edtastic -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

She is calling whiteness a system of oppression. That, right there, is being derogatory to a group based on it's skin color, which is as racist as you can get.

Well there we do find an exception. If we were in fact in a truly racists system where racial equality itself was a foreign concept then there would be no way to describe it without injecting some racist logic into it's structure. What I would contend is that today whiteness is not a ubiquitous system of oppression making her claims outdated and hyperbolic.

The fact one race has a greater population in a democracy and thus greater influence and market power does not make the social order inherently oppressive to the minority even if it is less convenient those people to have their unique needs met in that society. Being forced to find common interest with people outside your group is not itself oppressive because practically speaking we could define minority status along any number of lines and everyone would be oppressed.

Now what I think is legitimate is to argue that whiteness is a system of oppression in racists sub cultures within the society but to presume all whites are guilty or party to those systems simply for being white is unfair, racists, and hostile.

[–]JoshtheAspie 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]JoshtheAspie 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]edtastic -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Are you really going to be that stupid? Your making me look dumb for defending white men because nearly everyone I argued with was suggesting white men (like you) would respond this way. I guess they had a point. No matter how diplomatically I presented the facts or how well I insulated white men or white people of today from blame you still go right back to this defensive posture.

Yes whiteness was a system of oppression because we lived in a white supremacist society. This was a carefully organized system of oppression not some accidental consequence of there being more whites. Think apartheid South Africa not predominantly white region naturally favoring the majority. In the South there were often more blacks than whites so rigid systems of oppression were needed to keep them down.

"I don't like talking with racists. Especially people who are racist against me."

Don't say anymore stupid stuff like that. It makes you look bad and it makes us look bad. Racism happened. White supremacy happened. We can move on but denial is ahistoric and completely unacceptable. The same goes for the historic oppression of women. That also happened even if we question if that oppression was primarily about the exploitation of women.

If you must raise the issue of racism against whites then frame it in terms negative stereotyping not everyone who mentions our past is a racists. That's clownish bull shit.

[–]JoshtheAspie 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

No matter how gently you couch your racism, it's still racist.

Were there individual white people (men AND women) who were racist? Yes.

Were their groups of white people (like the KKK) that were racist? Yes.

At any time in history, was "whiteness" itself racist and oppressive? No, and to say that it was is, itself, racist.

I have not in any way objected to your pointing out the history of these groups existing. I object to your painting an entire race, at any point in time, with inherently having a negative quality as a feature of being a member of that race.

And when someone points out you're a racist, calling them stupid for calling you a racist doesn't help your case, no matter what race you are, or what race you're being racist against.

I understand that you don't like being called a racist. But even the way you denying being a racist, is evidence of your racism. Until you stop denying your racism, and accept how racist you are, you won't be able to confront your racism, and put an end to it.

So please, learn to stop being racist.

[+][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]JoshtheAspie 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]JoshtheAspie 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rightsbot 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bartab 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]ihateusernamesalot -9 points-8 points-7 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]ihateusernamesalot -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]JoshtheAspie -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]JoshtheAspie 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZimbaZumba 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[+]hellothere124 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZimbaZumba 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+]hellothere124 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Yes I understand that, but blacks were also not considered to be a "full person" less than 150 years ago. Are you saying that the effects of these policies and others like it have simply disappeared in such a short time? Either way, it seems that you are simply saying that because something cannot be 100% proven (actually that is giving you the benefit of the doubt, all your statement says is that people were wrong in the past therefore they are currently wrong about a completely unrelated topic, but I digress..)

I'm also not sure you understand what strawman means..you claim that using words such as "Structural" and "Institutional" along with racism and sexism is simply rhetoric to excuse racism and sexism against white males, something which you have labeled as "bullying" and "bigoted" I'm just asking if multitudes of evidence (again, which I can provide), surrounding these things are also "bullying" and "bigoted". Is any evidence showing something you don't like also "bullying" and "bigoted" (yes, that last one may be a strawman..)

Regardless, can you please show me the evidence against the existence of systemic racism in the US? If you would like, I an provide quite a bit of information on systematic oppression of minorities by corporations, politicians and institutions.

You are right I have no idea as to your level of education, however, I assumed that an esteemed professor specializing in this exact topic would not be spending time on a Men's Rights subreddit - I could be wrong, my apologies..However, I must say your responses seem to show a peculiar mix of superiority ("my beliefs are correct because I feel it to be so, and the evidence that shows otherwise is likely wrong), and victim complex (I am the one being bullied/discriminated against!!). In my experience, this persona and utter dogmatism does not tend to present in open-minded, educated and, frankly, mentally healthy people.

[–]JoshtheAspie 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

Ah, this tired canard again. The 3/5 compromise had nothing to do with saying that blacks were 3/5 of a person, and thinking that it did requires accepting multiple fallacies.

The 3/5 compromise was a compromise between two different factions. The anti-slavery faction believed that it was morally wrong to count a slave (black, white, native American, or Asian, all of which existed as slaves) as a part of a state's population for the specific purpose of apportioning how many members of the house of representatives each state got, or electoral votes for president.

Their reason for this stance was that slave owners would then be using the electoral power of their slaves to keep their slaves as slaves.

Slave owners, meanwhile, wanted as many much representation as they could get their hands on.

In order to allow the Constitution as a foundational document to actually come into existence, the anti-slavery representatives swallowed their distaste and compromised, in the hope that the new, stronger nation would eventually end slavery... which it did.

Neither of the sides between which this compromise was formed argued that a slave was any less than fully human.

The reason that slaves (of any race) were only considered 3/5 of a man for the purpose of apportionment was because there was a faction fighting for their freedom, who wanted to reduce the power of slave owning states.

Fighting for a person's right to freedom from slavery is NOT racism against him!

The fact that tripe like this idea that the 3/5 compromise being evidence of blacks being viewed as less than human, and treated as such at the governmental level is why many people do not take any form of "mufti-cultural" study seriously, and view studying such an area as an indicator against intelligence and knowledge, rather than for it.

[+]hellothere124 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Ah, well thank you for the history lesson, I stand corrected on that point. However you harping on one incorrect point in a overall larger argument indicates to me that you didn't really understand my point. It was not about the 3/5 law, it was on the general oppression of minorities (namely blacks), in the past, and the fact that the effect will obviously still be felt today. So let me reiterate. This professor was pointing out the existence of systemic racism, something that I think we all can agree exists today. It exists due to hundreds of years of oppression in the past, that obviously cannot be undone with simple legal action. For example, yes my "3/5 arguement" may be technically incorrect, but what about before that? Slavery existed, Jim Crow laws existed, separate but "equal" (which was never really equal), de facto segregation, etc. etc. Other than that I can also point you to countless examples of oppression of minorities that no doubt still has an effect today, whether most of us realize it or not. And I think, that is all this professor was trying to point out ..

[–]JoshtheAspie 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Ah, well thank you for the history lesson, I stand corrected on that point.

You're welcome.

However you harping on one incorrect point in a overall larger argument indicates to me that you didn't really understand my point.

I devoted an entire post to to the 3/5 issue, because I had detailed information and didn't want to get things muddied up.

Giving a detailed explanation of a commonly misunderstood and trotted out "fact" is not harping on something, nor is it an indication that I've misunderstood the rest of your post.

I'm sick and tired of that canard being tossed around in ignorance, and I try to actually spread factual information.

As to why I didn't reply to the rest of your post? First off, I didn't want to muddy the issue of the mini history lesson.

Secondly, other than pointing out that factual inaccuracy, I didn't have any desire to spend the energy to correct you on the rest of your post.

Particularly since I've already pointed out that slavery of all races existed, and you have completely ignored that point, and pretended that it doesn't exist, and that the existence of slavery is somehow a data-point that supports the "blacks are currently oppressed in America, and it's the fault of the white man" narrative.

The first owner of a life-long black slave in America was a black man. His court case, which allowed this, is what opened the door for lifelong and generational slavery in America as a whole.

I suggest you look into that, and also look into who in Africa captured the black subset of slaves that were then shipped to America.

[+]hellothere124 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Actually it is harping and it is an indication you don not understand my point, it is almost the same as grammar Nazi harping on a punctuation issue to detract from their lack of response to the main idea of a discussion. To make it a bit easier, let me just ask you straight out: do you deny that systemic racism exists? Do you deny that it is an issue?

My point here was that years and years of oppression (which I don't think you can deny existed) has effects that are still felt today. This is a point I have not seen you respond to in any way, shape or form, so I can only assume you either a) do not have a response, or b) misunderstand the key point of what I am saying, which is why your focus is on the details.

Quite funny you are at it again though, repeatedly ignoring the key point and spewing irrelevant and unnecessary details to the simple point of mine, which is that institutional racism exists throughout the US today, and is a remenant of past oppressive laws and guidelines. I do not deny that slavery of all races exists, however this does not detract from the point that the majority of black people in the US during late 1800's were slaves. This fact, coupled with obviously racist sentiments, and later on, both legal and de factor segregation, does have an affect today. Is this something you feel is not true?

[–]JoshtheAspie 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]hellothere124 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]hellothere124 -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Where does she "hate"? To me, it seems quite sad that these boys chose to victimize themselves despite PLENTY of research showing that we unfortunately do not live in a post racial work. Have any of you read Joe Faegin's work (white, male, Harvard PhD and well published sociology professor current at Texas I think..aka most likely far more informed than any of us)? Structural and systemic racism ABSOLUTELY does exist and pointing to various "exceptions" does not negate that fact. Second of all..University is a place you go to open your mind and broaden your horizons, something this professor was hoping to do. These 3 pathetic little boys seem feel entitled only to be taught things they want to hear. The teachings on structural racism are WELL documented and backed up by a plethora of peer-reviewed research..its not like this professor was bitching or sharing her opinions.

Edit: logic = downvotes here, eh?

[–]ZimbaZumba 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Firstly there is little logic to your rant, just a sequence of unsupported statements and Argument by Authority with no interconnecting logic. No one is denying Racism exists apart from the professor here, who considers herself immune from it when talking about whites and males.

You need to mix with people with more diverse opinions as does this professor. She is not used to having her World view challenged and needs to open her own mind before attempting the same on others. She is doing more closing than opening of minds.

Claiming a group is racist in front of its members and then saying they shouldn't take it personally is disingenuous and avoids accountability for her words. Her arguments are structurally little different from the opinions held about the Jews in certain quarters.

Your down votes are well deserved.

[+]hellothere124 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Well, from all accounts I read, she did not single any person or group out as being "racist", i.e. she certainly said "white people are racist" or "white males are racist", and if she did, I absolutely agree is that is over the top, out of line and flat out wrong.

From my understanding, she was referring to structural and institutional racism, which DOES exist. I fail to see how this singles out a group, or says that the group is racist. All it does is call attention to the fact that members of this group do not face some challenges that members of another group do, as they are still feeling effects of years and years of oppression in the not so distant past. Please, can you explain how pointing to a well documented fact, that systemic racism exists today, is a racist statement, or how it claims that a certain individual is racist? To me, all it does it point out to some that despite the fact that they more than likely are NOT racist, they are "benefiting" simply because they do not have hundreds of years of oppression working against them. To say that the effects of slavery, Jim Crow, etc are absolutely gone is ridiculous, naive and quite untrue.

[–]ZimbaZumba 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I suggest you read more carefully about how this woman sees the world and how she shares it with her classroom. Some choice quotes are :-

We're talking about whiteness as a system of oppression. And so I'm quite familiar, unfortunately, with how that works -- and how the institutional structures and powers reinforce this white male supremacy, basically, and that sort of narrative, and way of seeing the world.

and

It's not that you as a white male are oppressive, it's that whiteness and maleness are oppressive. You're taking this as a personal attack!

I am strongly left with the impression this is not a woman presenting material in an academic and balanced manner. I am left with the impression of a bitter ideological bigot. This is not the first time complaints have been made about her and her website further expounds her jaundiced world view. You are attempting to defend the undefendable.

Compliant 2009

Title	MCTC prof reprimanded for alienating white students during structural racism discussion
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	20
Comments	52
Date	December 3, 2013 12:29 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1rzm71/mctc_prof_reprimanded_for_alienating_white/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/mctc-prof-reprimanded-for-alienating-white.1157188 https://theredarchive.com/post/1157188

Comments