http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/12062

Snippet:

A political science professor at Butler University asks students to disregard their “American-ness, maleness, whiteness, heterosexuality, middle-class status” when writing and speaking in the classroom – a practice the school’s arts and sciences dean defended as a way to negate students’ inherent prejudices.

The syllabus of the course at Butler, a small Midwestern liberal arts institution in Indianapolis, spells out that students should use “inclusive language” because it’s “a fundamental issue of social justice.”
...
...
Being judged and forced to act a certain way is antithetical to how any institution of higher education should conduct itself.
...
...
Lastly, the idea that people have different views from mine is not what makes me uncomfortable. The idea that I must walk, talk and act as the liberal arts college pleases does. I’ll speak as I always have and conduct myself in the way I deem fit. I think paying $40,000 a year should give me that basic right.

I would've walked out of that class and transferred to a different school while playing this scene in my head:

(in Al Pacio's voice)Lt. Col. Frank Slade: Out of order, I show you out of order. You don't know what out of order is, Mr. Trask. I'd show you, but I'm too old, I'm too tired, I'm too fuckin' blind. If I were the man I was five years ago, I'd take a FLAMETHROWER to this place! Out of order? Who the hell do you think you're talkin' to? I've been around, you know? There was a time I could see. And I have seen. Boys like these, younger than these, their arms torn out, their legs ripped off. But there isn't nothin' like the sight of an amputated spirit. There is no prosthetic for that. You think you're merely sending this splendid foot soldier back home to Oregon with his tail between his legs, but I say you are... executin' his soul! And why? Because he's not a Bairdman. Bairdmen. You hurt this boy, you're gonna be Baird bums, the lot of ya. And Harry, Jimmy, Trent, wherever you are out there, feth YOU TOO!

Their first mistake was taking poitical science.

Seems fair enough to me.

 Frazzled wrote:
Their first mistake was taking poitical science.

heh...

I took Political Science... and it was great. Debates/discussion galore and they had one rule, no personal attacks.

But this... this is mind boggling.

I wonder what his success rates are like. If they're good then feth your patriotic ways

It is the instructor's place to instruct, and the students' place to be instructed.

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Seems fair enough to me.

So... when YOU write a paper, can you disregard your (looks at your map)“UK-ness, maleness, whiteness, heterosexuality, middle-class status” ??(I'm assuming that you're UK/male/white/straight/mid-class... if I'm wrong, sorry)




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 InquisitorVaron wrote:
I wonder what his success rates are like. If they're good then feth your patriotic ways

Well... that writer dropped that class (hence the article). In fairness, he's a Journalist Major.

I'm not sure the success rates are public information, I'd be curious to see that too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It is the instructor's place to instruct, and the students' place to be instructed.

Nope.

It's the Student's place to seek knowledge... Instructors are there to help facilitate.

Small distinction, but very important.

Yes I can. What he is trying to say is not to let bias cloud their work.

Not directed at me but I will answer also, yes the point of being a good observer of politics is having an objective view.

You can eradicate most of the bias but some will linger.
I think it might've been more for showmanship and a who's your boss statement.

The guy who dropped it should have tougher skin, anyone in that line of work will take flak someday.

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Yes I can. What he is trying to say is not to let bias cloud their work.

I don't think you're quite understanding this...

Have you taken any political science class?

I'm an American white 40k luving dude... and I'm under no illusion that I can articulate what it is like to be a poor Hispanic recently immigrated to the US. You can't just arbitrarily "check in" your identity like that.

In a way, I see where the professor is driving at... but, it looks an awful like you'd be judged for being who you are...

This class may work for some...

I'd find another class if any of my professors pull this on the students.

One of my most enjoyable College class I ever took was something like "The Legal Environment of Business" taught by a retired lawyer who admittedly far left liberal. This guy was a hoot and would always interject some liberal policies and encourages discussion. He NEVER docked anyone who held contrary opinion and seems to thrive on diverse opinions.

His tests? Whoa momma, they were a bitch. (squeaked by with a "B" on a curve)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 InquisitorVaron wrote:
Not directed at me but I will answer also, yes the point of being a good observer of politics is having an objective view.

You can eradicate most of the bias but some will linger.
I think it might've been more for showmanship and a who's your boss statement.

The guy who dropped it should have tougher skin, anyone in that line of work will take flak someday.

Did you read the whole thing. No where in there said that you must be objective. Only that you disregard their “American-ness, maleness, whiteness, heterosexuality, middle-class status”. Where's the disregard for Wealthy Asian folks? Hardworking Black folks?

See what I mean?

EDIT: okay this phrase "“Language that is truly inclusive affirms sexuality, racial and ethnic backgrounds, stages of maturity, and degrees of limiting conditions,” may be that's the objective part? o.O

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Their first mistake was taking poitical science.

heh...

I took Political Science... and it was great. Debates/discussion galore and they had one rule, no personal attacks.

But this... this is mind boggling.

I took Women and the Law in my last semester of my last degree. The class was com plewtely and utterly irrelevant to my future. I sat down and flipped a coin. Heads- act like LImbaugh. Tales- act like a PW'd manhater.

It landed heads. The class was epic.

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Their first mistake was taking poitical science.

heh...

I took Political Science... and it was great. Debates/discussion galore and they had one rule, no personal attacks.

But this... this is mind boggling.

I took Women and the Law in my last semester of my last degree. The class was com plewtely and utterly irrelevant to my future. I sat down and flipped a coin. Heads- act like LImbaugh. Tales- act like a PW'd manhater.

It landed heads. The class was epic.

That ought to have been on Pay per View... might be a good way to knock off some school debts

Not sure what your getting at whembly.
The guy's not asking you to put yourself in the shoes of someone else, he's asking you to tone down any bias and take a middleground perspective or a purple one


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I see what your getting at now, he's a racist for not listing all the races diffirent levels of hardworking finicial situations ect.

He did the logical thing and listed the groups that the majority of his class were in so white straight middle class people.

If that's not what your getting at perhaps you should spell it out so I'm not playing twenty questions trying to find what your getting at

 InquisitorVaron wrote:
Not sure what your getting at whembly.
The guy's not asking you to put yourself in the shoes of someone else, he's asking you to tone down any bias and take a middleground perspective or a purple one

Alright...

This is a Political Science Class. Which essentially means... there's an opinion of some way, shape or form.

The students are mandated to use inclusive language in the class. That's impossible unless there's a specific bias (in this case, logically from the professor). See where I'm getting at?

They might as well as to say, "we won't talk about/advocate issues relating to American-ness, maleness, whiteness, heterosexuality and middle-class status. So, we'll be discussing everything else."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 InquisitorVaron wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I see what your getting at now, he's a racist for not listing all the races diffirent levels of hardworking finicial situations ect.

He did the logical thing and listed the groups that the majority of his class were in so white straight middle class people.

If that's not what your getting at perhaps you should spell it out so I'm not playing twenty questions trying to find what your getting at

You're getting there!

He's/She's not racist.

Its more like... I'm trying to find the right phrase... um... improper advertising? This is Political Science 201: Research and Analysis. That's not a high level course. That syllabus may be something in more advance classes to study the differences of various policies.

whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It is the instructor's place to instruct, and the students' place to be instructed.

Nope.

It's the Student's place to seek knowledge... Instructors are there to help facilitate.

Small distinction, but very important.

Not in Accountancy.

Thanks for the clarification
So he's saying not to be bias when there must be bias?

I think my problem was I was thinking about the courses application in real life instead of what the course is like.

I shall bow down to your knowledge considering the experience and the fact it's about USA not UK.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It is the instructor's place to instruct, and the students' place to be instructed.

Nope.

It's the Student's place to seek knowledge... Instructors are there to help facilitate.

Small distinction, but very important.

Not in Accountancy.

Snicker...

Okay... got me there...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 InquisitorVaron wrote:
Thanks for the clarification
So he's saying not to be bias when there must be bias?

I think my problem was I was thinking about the courses application in real life instead of what the course is like.

I shall bow down to your knowledge considering the experience and the fact it's about USA not UK.

You got it.

I beat twenty questions! Thanks for not breaking my neck for my slight ignorance

The problem does not occur when one considers one's nationality, sex, race, orientation, or whatever eles to be part of your self-definition.

The problem occurs when one considers one's nationality, sex, race, orientation, or whatever else defines you as SUPERIOR to other nationalities, sexes, races, etc.

That line basically tells any white straight american male to disregard his identity. Which is a racist, sexist, and culturalist thing to say.

Its not different from asking a hispanic female to disregard her Femaleness, Hispanicness, and Mexicanness when talking in class.

Discrimination against the majority is still discrimination.


A better thing to say would be to put aside your Gender, Race, and Cultural biases while in this class. And I would explicitly say that applied to everyone.

In addition, the Dean's statement makes an insulting assumption.

A political science professor at Butler University asks students to disregard their “American-ness, maleness, whiteness, heterosexuality, middle-class status” when writing and speaking in the classroom – a practice the school’s arts and sciences dean defended as a way to negate students’ inherent prejudices.

Note the bolded part.

He assumes that everyone is prejudiced. He's basically accused all the white male students of being sexist and racist. Plus being uninclusive of other cultures.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It is the instructor's place to instruct, and the students' place to be instructed.

Nope.

It's the Student's place to seek knowledge... Instructors are there to help facilitate.

Small distinction, but very important.

Not in Accountancy.

You know this thread is about a political science class, right? And the teacher as facilitator/student as knowledge seeker model could certainly work in accountancy as well.

Templar your wrong on so many accounts.
I wasn't saying discrimination against the majority isn't discrimination.
I was saying he picked out the majority in the class and told them to put aside their bias.

Everyone is bias, no one will say I'm racist but everyone is to some degree. Don't sit on a high horse predjudice happens but the extremes are racist the "I'm slightly worried by the bearded arab with a backpack" would be sort of normal considering.

Now these people I wouldn't hate on just feel that playing a stereotype is bound to cause some tension, in my eyes where your become racist would be when you have a go at them.

Now don't bite my head off

But why is only a portion of the class being told to set aside their biases?

Its still discrimination and thus is wrong.

The school is making a rather insulting assumption that white males are racist and sexist. The proof is in that they have singled out that particular group and flat out told them to drop their Biases.

By only telling ONLY one group to drop their biases, they have implicitly condoned the biases of other groups.

I was saying he picked out the majority in the class and told them to put aside their bias.

Do you seriously not see what is wrong with this.

And what they are really meaning is Prejudice. Bias is actually a good thing. Bias is an opinion based on knowledge or experience, Prejudice is an opinion based on an irrational assumption or conclusion based on no, or faulty, information.

So what they have really said is the Prejudices of White Males are not going to be tolerated. Well, thats ok, but it implies that other people's Prejudices are ok.

 Grey Templar wrote:
But why is only a portion of the class being told to set aside their biases?

Its still discrimination and thus is wrong.

The school is making a rather insulting assumption that white males are racist and sexist. The proof is in that they have singled out that particular group and flat out told them to drop their Biases.

By only telling ONLY one group to drop their biases, they have implicitly condoned the biases of other groups.

I was saying he picked out the majority in the class and told them to put aside their bias.

Do you seriously not see what is wrong with this.

And what they are really meaning is Prejudice. Bias is actually a good thing. Bias is an opinion based on knowledge or experience, Prejudice is an opinion based on an irrational assumption or conclusion based on no, or faulty, information.

So what they have really said is the Prejudices of White Males are not going to be tolerated. Well, thats ok, but it implies that other people's Prejudices are ok.

GT has a very good point actually.

 Grey Templar wrote:
But why is only a portion of the class being told to set aside their biases?

Because we live in a culture that predominately presents a particularly white, male and largely american viewpoint. If you're say a gay Hispanic dude, you're already plenty used to not having your particular worldview echoed back to you. You turn on the TV and you see straight white people (and largely straight white dudes, if someone is speaking with authority), not gay guys with the same last name and primary language as you.

Unless you specifically seek other views, the narrative we get presented on world events, domestic news and just stuff in general is that as told from the perspective of a white american, often male if we're speaking about anything beyond housework, fashion or cooking. This isn't universal mind you, but it's certainly a strong enough trend that it can be called overwhelmingly dominate.

This means that a white, christian-ish male living above the poverty line has (at least in america), has effectively lived his life in a giant cultural echo chamber. It's not unreasonable to ask him to make a special effort to try and make some effort to push aside his assumptions of what's "Normal" because of the fact that he's faced far fewer challenges to those assumptions than anyone else.


EDIT: TLDR; Everyone has biases towards their view of "Normal". However, for the white/american/straight/male/non-poor person those are far more strongly reinforced by our media, view of history and the faces of our leadership than they are for anyone else. Therefore in the context of a class specifically meant to explore the role of the state and the general condition of people in it, it's not unreasonable to ask them to take a bigger step back to try and get a broader perspective.

 Grey Templar wrote:

A political science professor at Butler University asks students to disregard their “American-ness, maleness, whiteness, heterosexuality, middle-class status” when writing and speaking in the classroom – a practice the school’s arts and sciences dean defended as a way to negate students’ inherent prejudices.

Note the bolded part.

He assumes that everyone is prejudiced. He's basically accused all the white male students of being sexist and racist. Plus being uninclusive of other cultures.

Everyone is inherently prejudiced. This article and thread is slowed.

The quote is actually a butchered paraphrase anyway...

ask students “to write and speak in a way that does not assume American-ness, maleness, whiteness, heterosexuality, middle-class status, etc. to be the norm.”

 Glorioski wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

A political science professor at Butler University asks students to disregard their “American-ness, maleness, whiteness, heterosexuality, middle-class status” when writing and speaking in the classroom – a practice the school’s arts and sciences dean defended as a way to negate students’ inherent prejudices.

Note the bolded part.

He assumes that everyone is prejudiced. He's basically accused all the white male students of being sexist and racist. Plus being uninclusive of other cultures.

Everyone is inherently prejudiced. This article and thread is slowed.

No, everyone is Biased. But thats not always a bad thing.

Not everyoneis Prejudiced.

And what they are really trying to curb is racisim and sexisim. But they've gone one step further and basically implied all White Males are racist and sexist and thus we must censor their opinions. Which is extremely racist AND sexist towards white males.

Are we really looking this hard for something to be outraged about?

I feel that we are just receiving reposts from some sort of "this is what you (the hardworking, patriotic, freedom-loving WASP) should rage about today" mailing list...

 whembly wrote:

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Seems fair enough to me.

So... when YOU write a paper, can you disregard your (looks at your map)“UK-ness, maleness, whiteness, heterosexuality, middle-class status” ??(I'm assuming that you're UK/male/white/straight/mid-class... if I'm wrong, sorry)

Yes, yes I can. In fact I did. I managed to get a 1st. It's not hard to write in gender-neutral, racially and culturally inclusive language. You should probably be doing that anyway if you're writing academically.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Glorioski wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

A political science professor at Butler University asks students to disregard their “American-ness, maleness, whiteness, heterosexuality, middle-class status” when writing and speaking in the classroom – a practice the school’s arts and sciences dean defended as a way to negate students’ inherent prejudices.

Note the bolded part.

He assumes that everyone is prejudiced. He's basically accused all the white male students of being sexist and racist. Plus being uninclusive of other cultures.

Everyone is inherently prejudiced. This article and thread is slowed.

No, everyone is Biased. But thats not always a bad thing.

Not everyoneis Prejudiced.

And what they are really trying to curb is racisim and sexisim. But they've gone one step further and basically implied all White Males are racist and sexist and thus we must censor their opinions. Which is extremely racist AND sexist towards white males.

Read the article and notice how much is actually quoted and how much is actually the writer's bs.

 Albatross wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Seems fair enough to me.

So... when YOU write a paper, can you disregard your (looks at your map)“UK-ness, maleness, whiteness, heterosexuality, middle-class status” ??(I'm assuming that you're UK/male/white/straight/mid-class... if I'm wrong, sorry)

Yes, yes I can. In fact I did. I managed to get a 1st. It's not hard to write in gender-neutral, racially and culturally inclusive language. You should probably be doing that anyway if you're writing academically.

Yeah, but thats not what the school is asking. They are asking the students to be free of any white male american influence that might effect their work.

If the same thing was said about female, black, hispanic, asian, arab, or any other nationalitys influence there would be outrage.

Its an inherently sexist and racist statement made by the school, but somehow its ok because it was targeting the majority.

Society has basically approved of being sexist and racist against white males. How is this not wrong?

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Glorioski wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

A political science professor at Butler University asks students to disregard their “American-ness, maleness, whiteness, heterosexuality, middle-class status” when writing and speaking in the classroom – a practice the school’s arts and sciences dean defended as a way to negate students’ inherent prejudices.

Note the bolded part.

He assumes that everyone is prejudiced. He's basically accused all the white male students of being sexist and racist. Plus being uninclusive of other cultures.

Everyone is inherently prejudiced. This article and thread is slowed.

No, everyone is Biased. But thats not always a bad thing.

Not everyoneis Prejudiced.

And what they are really trying to curb is racisim and sexisim. But they've gone one step further and basically implied all White Males are racist and sexist and thus we must censor their opinions. Which is extremely racist AND sexist towards white males.

Asking you to take some extra steps to ask "Ok. These are my opinions, where have they come from? Is there information that might contradict some of them? If so have I been somehow insulated from these views?", when the vast majority of people you're intended to take seriously are in many ways very similar to you isn't unreasonable. Especially when that becomes more and more not true for each property (White, Male, American, Straight, Not-Poor) someone doesn't have.

This doesn't mean they never have to step back from their own experience to get more complete picture, it's just going to be far less of an issue for most of them. Heck, they're usually the ones getting hurt by the other side of these issues.

It doesn't really matter because what grey templar is drawing attention to is not a statement of fact it's just the writer's slowed opinion...

 Grey Templar wrote:

A political science professor at Butler University asks students to disregard their “American-ness, maleness, whiteness, heterosexuality, middle-class status” when writing and speaking in the classroom – a practice the school’s arts and sciences dean defended as a way to negate students’ inherent prejudices.

Note the bolded part.

He assumes that everyone is prejudiced. He's basically accused all the white male students of being sexist and racist. Plus being uninclusive of other cultures.

Like most of the article it is bs. That's not a quote in the bold. The quote there is inside the quotation marks and is actually this...

ask students “to write and speak in a way that does not assume American-ness, maleness, whiteness, heterosexuality, middle-class status, etc. to be the norm.”

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Seems fair enough to me.

So... when YOU write a paper, can you disregard your (looks at your map)“UK-ness, maleness, whiteness, heterosexuality, middle-class status” ??(I'm assuming that you're UK/male/white/straight/mid-class... if I'm wrong, sorry)

Yes, yes I can. In fact I did. I managed to get a 1st. It's not hard to write in gender-neutral, racially and culturally inclusive language. You should probably be doing that anyway if you're writing academically.

Yeah, but thats not what the school is asking. They are asking the students to be free of any white male american influence that might effect their work.

If the same thing was said about female, black, hispanic, asian, arab, or any other nationalitys influence there would be outrage.

Its an inherently sexist and racist statement made by the school, but somehow its ok because it was targeting the majority.

Society has basically approved of being sexist and racist against white males. How is this not wrong?

That's a nice rhetorical flourish at the end there, but I'm pretty sure I never said that it wasn't wrong to be racist against whites, or sexist against males. If the controversial statement was actually made and accurately quoted, then it was obviously a slip-up on the part of the lecturer, and the spirit of what he meant was closer to what I alluded to in my post. It's actually pretty common in universities (here, at least) to provide guidelines on culturally sensitive writing and language. I just think there's just a lot of white males looking for a liberal to get angry with, so they can add fuel to their conspiracy fire. This guy's just another one.

 d-usa wrote:
Are we really looking this hard for something to be outraged about?

I feel that we are just receiving reposts from some sort of "this is what you (the hardworking, patriotic, freedom-loving WASP) should rage about today" mailing list...

Naw... just engaging a health discussion amongst the Dakkanauts that these things exist.

So, you don't see a problem with it?

What the class should say is to check in ALL prejudice at the door and not singling out whites/american/straights/etc...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
But why is only a portion of the class being told to set aside their biases?

Its still discrimination and thus is wrong.

The school is making a rather insulting assumption that white males are racist and sexist. The proof is in that they have singled out that particular group and flat out told them to drop their Biases.

By only telling ONLY one group to drop their biases, they have implicitly condoned the biases of other groups.

I was saying he picked out the majority in the class and told them to put aside their bias.

Do you seriously not see what is wrong with this.

And what they are really meaning is Prejudice. Bias is actually a good thing. Bias is an opinion based on knowledge or experience, Prejudice is an opinion based on an irrational assumption or conclusion based on no, or faulty, information.

So what they have really said is the Prejudices of White Males are not going to be tolerated. Well, thats ok, but it implies that other people's Prejudices are ok.

GT has a very good point actually.

Yup... I concur.

Again, I think it's more about not writing from a perspective that assumes a mainstream American superiority. Which is perfectly reasonable. It's not because you have a black president.

 Albatross wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Seems fair enough to me.

So... when YOU write a paper, can you disregard your (looks at your map)“UK-ness, maleness, whiteness, heterosexuality, middle-class status” ??(I'm assuming that you're UK/male/white/straight/mid-class... if I'm wrong, sorry)

Yes, yes I can. In fact I did. I managed to get a 1st. It's not hard to write in gender-neutral, racially and culturally inclusive language. You should probably be doing that anyway if you're writing academically.

Unless I'm taking a class specifically to do just that... then, yah I could do that.

But, why just exclude whites/straights/mid-class/etc..?? Don't these "groups" have any play/input in political science?

It's not about pretending they don't exist.

It's about acknowledging that just because they are the majority it doesn't make them right or normal and they shouldn't act like it does.

 whembly wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Seems fair enough to me.

So... when YOU write a paper, can you disregard your (looks at your map)“UK-ness, maleness, whiteness, heterosexuality, middle-class status” ??(I'm assuming that you're UK/male/white/straight/mid-class... if I'm wrong, sorry)

Yes, yes I can. In fact I did. I managed to get a 1st. It's not hard to write in gender-neutral, racially and culturally inclusive language. You should probably be doing that anyway if you're writing academically.

Unless I'm taking a class specifically to do just that... then, yah I could do that.

But, why just exclude whites/straights/mid-class/etc..?? Don't these "groups" have any play/input in political science?

Well, yes. That's the problem. They have historically had all the play in subjects like that and history, for example. We learn white male history, white male politics, white male music, white male art....





Hey, I think there's a song in that somewhere....

 whembly wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Seems fair enough to me.

So... when YOU write a paper, can you disregard your (looks at your map)“UK-ness, maleness, whiteness, heterosexuality, middle-class status” ??(I'm assuming that you're UK/male/white/straight/mid-class... if I'm wrong, sorry)

Yes, yes I can. In fact I did. I managed to get a 1st. It's not hard to write in gender-neutral, racially and culturally inclusive language. You should probably be doing that anyway if you're writing academically.

Unless I'm taking a class specifically to do just that... then, yah I could do that.

But, why just exclude whites/straights/mid-class/etc..?? Don't these "groups" have any play/input in political science?

Almost an overwhelming level of input, so much so that's it's prudent to guard against biases in that regard. You're far more likely to have a straight student coming in thinking that Gays are weird, than you are to have a Gay student come in thinking straight people are weird. You don't really have to tell the gay students "Hey. Don't go assuming everyone is gay. Things are different for straight people and some of these things could affect them ways they might not affect you" for reasons I hope are obvious.

 d-usa wrote:
It's not about pretending they don't exist.

It's about acknowledging that just because they are the majority it doesn't make them right or normal and they shouldn't act like it does.

So... being white/straight/mid-class/american is... what... ?

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It's not about pretending they don't exist.

It's about acknowledging that just because they are the majority it doesn't make them right or normal and they shouldn't act like it does.

So... being white/straight/mid-class/american is... what... ?

A state, of many. That is no more/less correct than any other, but is frequently presented as such even if only implicitly. This tends to have somewhat of a blinding effect on those who are white/straght/mid-class+/american, that may require just a bit of extra effort from those individuals to understand how things affect people who aren't white/straight/mid-class+/american.

Not because they're stupid or being white is bad, just because the world as presented to us on TV and in the history books isn't really a one that's as inclusive of people who aren't white/straght/mid-class+/american.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It's not about pretending they don't exist.

It's about acknowledging that just because they are the majority it doesn't make them right or normal and they shouldn't act like it does.

So... being white/straight/mid-class/american is... what... ?

They're right if they're right. Normal is a majority think so well...
Are you suggesting veing "normal" is racist?

Me thinks eceryone gone off a tangent and are going to indepth...

Seriously I could rename this thread: College instructor throws celebratory raffle in aid of“American-ness, maleness, whiteness, etc.." ...and it would make as much sense as the current title when you understand the quote comes from “to write and speak in a way that does not assume American-ness, maleness, whiteness, heterosexuality, middle-class status, etc. to be the norm.” and is just encouraging inclusive language in the students writing.

This article, thread is moronic. Wake up.

 Chongara wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It's not about pretending they don't exist.

It's about acknowledging that just because they are the majority it doesn't make them right or normal and they shouldn't act like it does.

So... being white/straight/mid-class/american is... what... ?

A state, of many. That is no more/less correct than any other, but is frequently presented as such even if only implicitly. This tends to have somewhat of a blinding effect on those who are white/straght/mid-class+/american, that may require just a bit of extra effort from those individuals to understand how things affect people who aren't white/straight/mid-class+/american.

Not because they're stupid or being white is bad, just because the world as presented to us on TV and in the history books isn't really a one that's as inclusive of people who aren't white/straght/mid-class+/american.

I think that's fine and dandy in a cultural studies class... but, not political science.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Glorioski wrote:
Seriously I could rename this thread: College instructor throws celebratory raffle in aid of“American-ness, maleness, whiteness, etc.." ...and it would make as much sense as the current title when you understand the quote comes from “to write and speak in a way that does not assume American-ness, maleness, whiteness, heterosexuality, middle-class status, etc. to be the norm.” and is just encouraging inclusive language in the students writing.

This article, thread is moronic. Wake up.

No matter how you re-word it, its still discriminatory.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 InquisitorVaron wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It's not about pretending they don't exist.

It's about acknowledging that just because they are the majority it doesn't make them right or normal and they shouldn't act like it does.

So... being white/straight/mid-class/american is... what... ?

They're right if they're right. Normal is a majority think so well...
Are you suggesting veing "normal" is racist?

Me thinks eceryone gone off a tangent and are going to indepth...

that's the point of having a good discussion!

 whembly wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It's not about pretending they don't exist.

It's about acknowledging that just because they are the majority it doesn't make them right or normal and they shouldn't act like it does.

So... being white/straight/mid-class/american is... what... ?

A state, of many. That is no more/less correct than any other, but is frequently presented as such even if only implicitly. This tends to have somewhat of a blinding effect on those who are white/straght/mid-class+/american, that may require just a bit of extra effort from those individuals to understand how things affect people who aren't white/straight/mid-class+/american.

Not because they're stupid or being white is bad, just because the world as presented to us on TV and in the history books isn't really a one that's as inclusive of people who aren't white/straght/mid-class+/american.

I think that's fine and dandy in a cultural studies class... but, not political science.

"Don't act like your way of life is the right way of life simply because you are the majority" is a statement that has a place in any class where people of many backgrounds and cultures are working together. And considering the status of politics and the dumb things that have been said over the last 18 months, maybe a political science class is the perfect place for a statement like that.

 Glorioski wrote:
Seriously I could rename this thread: College instructor throws celebratory raffle in aid of“American-ness, maleness, whiteness, etc.." ...and it would make as much sense as the current title when you understand the quote comes from “to write and speak in a way that does not assume American-ness, maleness, whiteness, heterosexuality, middle-class status, etc. to be the norm.” and is just encouraging inclusive language in the students writing.

This article, thread is moronic. Wake up.

No matter how you re-word it, its still discriminatory.

Sorry, there is nothing discriminatory about this sentence: “to write and speak in a way that does not assume American-ness, maleness, whiteness, heterosexuality, middle-class status, etc. to be the norm.”

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Glorioski wrote:
Seriously I could rename this thread: College instructor throws celebratory raffle in aid of“American-ness, maleness, whiteness, etc.." ...and it would make as much sense as the current title when you understand the quote comes from “to write and speak in a way that does not assume American-ness, maleness, whiteness, heterosexuality, middle-class status, etc. to be the norm.” and is just encouraging inclusive language in the students writing.

This article, thread is moronic. Wake up.

No matter how you re-word it, its still discriminatory.

Sorry, there is nothing discriminatory about this sentence: “to write and speak in a way that does not assume American-ness, maleness, whiteness, heterosexuality, middle-class status, etc. to be the norm.”

Right and I'm not rewording anything. Read the article and take note of what is quoted and what is the writer turning what the University is saying into something completely different.

 Glorioski wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Glorioski wrote:
Seriously I could rename this thread: College instructor throws celebratory raffle in aid of“American-ness, maleness, whiteness, etc.." ...and it would make as much sense as the current title when you understand the quote comes from “to write and speak in a way that does not assume American-ness, maleness, whiteness, heterosexuality, middle-class status, etc. to be the norm.” and is just encouraging inclusive language in the students writing.

This article, thread is moronic. Wake up.

No matter how you re-word it, its still discriminatory.

Sorry, there is nothing discriminatory about this sentence: “to write and speak in a way that does not assume American-ness, maleness, whiteness, heterosexuality, middle-class status, etc. to be the norm.”

Right and I'm not rewording anything. Read the article and take note of what is quoted and what is the writer turning what the University is saying into something completely different.

What do we expect from a webside that gives us our daily dose of right-minded campus news...

Favouring or downplaying anyones opinion on the basis of race, culture etc is inherently discriminatory regardless of intentions. The class is being discriminatory as White Male views are just as important as Black Male views, etc.

This is what he said without that sites bs littered after every line:

Jay Howard, dean of Butler’s College of Liberal Arts and Sciences: “...students must be told not to assume such prejudices because such assumptions are ingrained into the culture and remain there until questioned. With that, a liberal arts education questions these assumptions, and such questions can make for uncomfortable situations.”

“Sometimes in order to broaden the conversation and broaden the understandings you’ve got to risk making people uncomfortable. There’s nothing about a college education that guarantees you won’t be made uncomfortable. As a matter of fact, if you’re never made uncomfortable in your college education, you’re not really getting a college education.”

Howard said the college he oversees does not want students to continue to harbor such assumptions without question, “but neither do we want to exclude the dominant group in society in our attempts to make sure that we’re leveling hierarchies.”

“In twenty years, white people will no longer be the majority, but they will still be the largest ethnic group...using inclusive language would help students prepare for a changing world as America becomes more diverse.”

He added that American culture makes speaking inclusively difficult, and the English language is partly to blame.

“Our language doesn’t make it easy to write in ways that are inclusive. We don’t have a generic singular, I mean we have he and she. There is no pronoun that is gender-neutral there.”

This has nothing to do with "presuming every student who walks through the door is a racist or misogynist." or "disregarding their race" and everything to do with asking students to re-evaluate what they consider as the norm in the face of a more diverse America, and reflect this by using inclusive language in their writing and speaking.

Learn to question bad journalism and read into things.

 Mr Hyena wrote:
Favouring or downplaying anyones opinion on the basis of race, culture etc is inherently discriminatory regardless of intentions. The class is being discriminatory as White Male views are just as important as Black Male views, etc.

Hey... Glorisky... what ^^^ he said.

 whembly wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:
Favouring or downplaying anyones opinion on the basis of race, culture etc is inherently discriminatory regardless of intentions. The class is being discriminatory as White Male views are just as important as Black Male views, etc.

Hey... Glorisky... what ^^^ he said.

You really need to read through this again as he isn't doing any of that.

A political science professor at Butler University asks students to disregard their “American-ness, maleness, whiteness, heterosexuality, middle-class status” when writing and speaking in the classroom – a practice the school’s arts and sciences dean defended as a way to negate students’ inherent prejudices.

The syllabus of the course at Butler, a small Midwestern liberal arts institution in Indianapolis, spells out that students should use “inclusive language” because it’s “a fundamental issue of social justice.”

“Language that is truly inclusive affirms sexuality, racial and ethnic backgrounds, stages of maturity, and degrees of limiting conditions,” the syllabus states, referencing a definition created by the United Church of Christ.

The syllabus of the class, called Political Science 201: Research and Analysis, goes on to ask students “to write and speak in a way that does not assume American-ness, maleness, whiteness, heterosexuality, middle-class status, etc. to be the norm.” It is taught by a black, female professor.

In an interview with The College Fix, Jay Howard, dean of Butler’s College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, denied this practice essentially presumes every student who walks through the door is a racist or misogynist.

He said students must be told not to assume such prejudices because such assumptions are ingrained into the culture and remain there until questioned. With that, a liberal arts education questions these assumptions, and such questions can make for uncomfortable situations, he said.

“Sometimes in order to broaden the conversation and broaden the understandings you’ve got to risk making people uncomfortable,” Howard said. “There’s nothing about a college education that guarantees you won’t be made uncomfortable. As a matter of fact, if you’re never made uncomfortable in your college education, you’re not really getting a college education.”

Howard said the college he oversees does not want students to continue to harbor such assumptions without question, “but neither do we want to exclude the dominant group in society in our attempts to make sure that we’re leveling hierarchies.”

In twenty years, white people will no longer be the majority, but they will still be the largest ethnic group, Howard said. He said using inclusive language would help students prepare for a changing world as America becomes more diverse.

He added that American culture makes speaking inclusively difficult, and the English language is partly to blame.

“Our language doesn’t make it easy to write in ways that are inclusive,” Howard said. “We don’t have a generic singular, I mean we have he and she. There is no pronoun that is gender-neutral there.”

However, not all writing- and language-intensive classes at Butler University mandate students use such “inclusive” language.

Nancy Whitmore, director of the journalism school in the College of Communication, said in an interview with The College Fix that students in her department are encouraged to use diverse sources with a wide variety of opinions, but are not mandated to use so-called inclusive language.

Whitmore said she is unsure what educators in Butler’s College of Liberal Arts and Sciences mean when they ask students to write without assuming certain things to be the norm.

“I don’t think I could ever write from a black woman’s point of view because I’ve never been a black woman,” Whitmore said.

Indeed.

My name is Ryan Lovelace, and I dropped that politically correct political science class.

Clearly, the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at Butler University believes its students were raised as racist and misogynist homophobes who have grown to harbor many prejudices, a stance that is both offensive and hostile to any student’s ability to learn.

As a student at an institution predominantly focused on the liberal arts, I expected to hear professors express opinions different from my own. I did not expect to be judged before I ever walked through the door, and did not think I would be forced to agree with my teachers’ worldviews or suffer the consequences.

Being judged and forced to act a certain way is antithetical to how any institution of higher education should conduct itself.

As a journalism major, I will now strive to avoid the liberal arts college as much as possible, not because the college fails to provide its students with any practical knowledge, but because the college seeks to indoctrinate its students with a hostile paradigm that views people like me—an American, white, heterosexual male from a middle-class background—as evil; whitey-righty need not attend.

Many consider higher education to be in turbulent waters because of rising tuition costs and student loan debt, but students who actually graduate may struggle even more if they view the world as Butler’s College of Liberal Arts and Sciences does.

The liberal arts college seeks to include people, but someone will always be excluded, as it is impossible to always include everyone. Furthermore, I’m not sure how to write assuming any other persona but my own. Any attempts to do so would only be offensive to people different from myself.

Lastly, the idea that people have different views from mine is not what makes me uncomfortable. The idea that I must walk, talk and act as the liberal arts college pleases does. I’ll speak as I always have and conduct myself in the way I deem fit. I think paying $40,000 a year should give me that basic right.

Fix contributor Ryan Lovelace is a student at Butler University.

Why not post the entire text in the initial post?

 Medium of Death wrote:

-snip-

Why not post the entire text in the initial post?

If you don't go to the website you might miss out and not realize it is just a bunch of right-wing students writing essays about perceived offenses to their value systems?

 d-usa wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

-snip-

Why not post the entire text in the initial post?

If you don't go to the website you might miss out and not realize it is just a bunch of right-wing students writing essays about perceived offenses to their value systems?

/thread

 Medium of Death wrote:
[quotes..

.snip.
Why not post the entire text in the initial post?

 d-usa wrote:
Are we really looking this hard for something to be outraged about?

I feel that we are just receiving reposts from some sort of "this is what you (the hardworking, patriotic, freedom-loving WASP) should rage about today" mailing list...

That's actually the whole reason that site exists. It's mission is to send conservative students to liberal classes and schools to report how... listen man, I don't know. I mean, no one gets drafted to go to a college, if you don't like the curriculum you're free to vote with your dollars. But, anyway, yeah, it's another module in the conservative outrage machine©, which is essential because conservatives need to keep white males angry so they can get out the vote and win elections for Republicans. Since the majority of the American voting block is white people, and this will never change, this plan should work forever.

tl;dr; next time try to work in Obamacare somewhere.

 whembly wrote:
So... ya'll ignoring this too?

Nancy Whitmore, director of the journalism school in the College of Communication, said in an interview with The College Fix that students in her department are encouraged to use diverse sources with a wide variety of opinions, but are not mandated to use so-called inclusive language.

Whitmore said she is unsure what educators in Butler’s College of Liberal Arts and Sciences mean when they ask students to write without assuming certain things to be the norm.

“I don’t think I could ever write from a black woman’s point of view because I’ve never been a black woman,” Whitmore said.

What about it? She says two things there:

1) Inclusive language isn't mandated as a school policy. So what? Professors are free to add their own policies and grading scales on top of the department/college rules, so that doesn't in any way say that the professor is doing something wrong.

2) She couldn't write from the perspective of a black woman. So what? That's not what the professor told the students to do. There's a difference between "consider the fact that, even though society's default in media is similar to your life, your experiences aren't universal" and "ignore your own life and write from the perspective of someone else".

I can't really write from someone else's perspecitive, because its theirs and not mine.

Furthermore, why should I? I mean, I know its important to understand other people, but why should my own experiences be discounted? Especially in a class that has nothing to do with social studies.

It just doesn't seem like an appropriate thing to bring up in a class about politics. Isn't politics about getting your personal views heard?

Shouldn't a political studies class be focused on how the system works from a generic stand point? Or maybe on the different political viewpoints of various persons involved, without the Teacher throwing his own beliefs on the students.


People have their own leanings, and disallowing their beliefs(especially in such a narrow targeted way) to "interfer" is wrong on all accounts.

Its actually exclusive of the teacher to do that. He's excluding one particular set of experiences.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I can't really write from someone else's perspecitive, because its theirs and not mine.

Fortunately that's not what is being requested. The idea is to write from a neutral perspective.

Furthermore, why should I? I mean, I know its important to understand other people, but why should my own experiences be discounted?

They aren't being discounted. Nobody said "white middle class people are unworthy and should kill themselves in shame". The problem is that people who are in the majority more frequently have problems with understanding that their experiences and expectations are not universal, so the professor is just giving a reminder that it often takes a conscious effort to be aware of where you're confusing "majority" with "everyone".

It just doesn't seem like an appropriate thing to bring up in a class about politics. Isn't politics about getting your personal views heard?

Maybe if you want a purely selfish version of politics. If, instead, you want a system that represents everyone, then it's very important to be able to understand the perspectives of the people you're representing even when they aren't ones you're usually exposed to.

People have their own leanings, and disallowing their beliefs(especially in such a narrow targeted way) to "interfer" is wrong on all accounts.

Nobody is disallowing anything.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I can't really write from someone else's perspecitive, because its theirs and not mine.

Fortunately that's not what is being requested. The idea is to write from a neutral perspective.

i think what the professor is trying to do, and what this thread shows is sorely needed, is to make people understand that the "white" (ore straight/christian/american/male/middle class/etc) point of view is distinct from having no specific point of view.

One of the bizarre outcomes of the increasing diversity of the last 60 years in the US is that we tend to see two types of expression: mainstream, and "diverse." What we don't see is that while there might not be a monolithic "white" culture like there is "black" culture, aspects of being white color a white persons perception.

One of the reason's the teacher didn't tell black/LGBT/female/foreign students to ignore those traits is because every person from those groups knows that there are two worlds, and they need to leave their identity a little to succeed.

 Polonius wrote:
One of the reason's the teacher didn't tell black/LGBT/female/foreign students to ignore those traits is because every person from those groups knows that there are two worlds, and they need to leave their identity a little to succeed.

Blammo, well put.

 Polonius wrote:
i think what the professor is trying to do, and what this thread shows is sorely needed, is to make people understand that the "white" (ore straight/christian/american/male/middle class/etc) point of view is distinct from having no specific point of view.

One of the bizarre outcomes of the increasing diversity of the last 60 years in the US is that we tend to see two types of expression: mainstream, and "diverse." What we don't see is that while there might not be a monolithic "white" culture like there is "black" culture, aspects of being white color a white persons perception.

One of the reason's the teacher didn't tell black/LGBT/female/foreign students to ignore those traits is because every person from those groups knows that there are two worlds, and they need to leave their identity a little to succeed.

They could easily do that by using general language without explicitly singling people out.

Again, you are insinuating that white males are assuming their viewpoint is the norm. Which is a sexist and racist viewpoint.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I can't really write from someone else's perspecitive, because its theirs and not mine.

Fortunately that's not what is being requested. The idea is to write from a neutral perspective.

Except that is NOT what was being said. It was asking White Males to write from a neutral perspective. It was explicitly singling out white males. Which is obviously racist and sexist.

We can't have double standards here.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I can't really write from someone else's perspecitive, because its theirs and not mine.

Fortunately that's not what is being requested. The idea is to write from a neutral perspective.

Except that is NOT what was being said. It was asking White Males to write from a neutral perspective. It was explicitly singling out white males. Which is obviously racist and sexist.

We can't have double standards here.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Again, you are insinuating that white males are assuming their viewpoint is the norm. Which is a sexist and racist viewpoint.

No, it's a true viewpoint. Individual white men may not have this problem, but as a group it's far more common. You know, since popular culture portrays it as the norm, and it's not exactly unreasonable to say that, as a group, people are influenced by the most common messages in culture.

Reminding fans of a game is way different from bringing race and sex into the equation.

 Peregrine wrote:

You're missing the point entirely. Everyone should write from a neutral perspective, but let's be realistic about who need a reminder the most. A poor black woman doesn't need to be reminded that her experiences aren't universal, since everything in popular media does a very good job of that already. On the other hand, young middle class white men tend to have more problems with that understanding, so it's fair to remind them that this is an issue to pay attention to.

Well put.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Again, you are insinuating that white males are assuming their viewpoint is the norm. Which is a sexist and racist viewpoint.

No, it's a true viewpoint. Individual white men may not have this problem, but as a group it's far more common. You know, since popular culture portrays it as the norm, and it's not exactly unreasonable to say that, as a group, people are influenced by the most common messages in culture.

Thats abit of an assumption there. And a racist and sexist one at that.

Its on par with saying that, as a group, Blacks have more criminals. Just because something is true doesn't mean its not a racist thing to say.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Reminding fans of a game is way different from bringing race and sex into the equation.

No it isn't. In both cases it's "singling out" a group that has, in past experience, had a higher rate of a certain problem than other groups. Focusing on race and sex is just attempting to add false controversy based on the knowledge that screaming about "reverse discrimination" is a great way to get attention from tinfoil hat conservatives.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Reminding fans of a game is way different from bringing race and sex into the equation.

No it isn't. In both cases it's "singling out" a group that has, in past experience, had a higher rate of a certain problem than other groups. Focusing on race and sex is just attempting to add false controversy based on the knowledge that screaming about "reverse discrimination" is a great way to get attention from tinfoil hat conservatives.

Doesn't change the fact its still racist and sexist.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Reminding fans of a game is way different from bringing race and sex into the equation.

No it isn't. In both cases it's "singling out" a group that has, in past experience, had a higher rate of a certain problem than other groups. Focusing on race and sex is just attempting to add false controversy based on the knowledge that screaming about "reverse discrimination" is a great way to get attention from tinfoil hat conservatives.

Doesn't change the fact its still racist and sexist.

I mean, it's racist and sexist the same way only telling white guys were the sunscreen and urinals are.

It's not that white males are more likely to unaware of their lack of otherness. It's that they are the only people that can be unaware.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Thats abit of an assumption there. And a racist and sexist one at that.

It's not an assumption, it's common sense fact. If you are a member of the majority group you are FAR more likely to see the majority perspective as a universal one, simply because the majority message keeps reinforcing itself and you have less exposure to minority perspectives.

Its on par with saying that, as a group, Blacks have more criminals. Just because something is true doesn't mean its not a racist thing to say.

Saying that black people have a higher rate of crime isn't racist, it's just quoting statistics. It's only racist when you try to draw a racist conclusion from it, such as claiming that the higher crime rate reflects some kind of inherent criminal character of black people. Consider the following statements, both of which reference that statistic:

"Black people have more criminals, due in large part to much higher rates of poverty and fewer opportunities for success. Therefore we should consider WHY people commit crimes, and not focus exclusively on punishing the guilty."

"Black people have more criminals, because they're uncivilized and violent."

I think it's pretty obvious which one of these is racist and which isn't.

In this thread: people are offended because they are told to try not to offend people.

 d-usa wrote:
In this thread: people are offended because they are told to try not to offend people.

I happily revel in the ability to offend people.
Are you offended yet?

I'll be sure to be less Japanese, Female, 12 years old and cute the next time I happen to be writing.

you know what, my cousin majored in political science at Butler, and I think she also complained about this teacher. she's about as liberal as it comes, but even she said it was wrong to have people check their identities at the classroom door. it's funny that the first political science class I took last year the first thing I was told was: "you're in the college of liberal arts. here there are no right answers, only your ability to back up your arguments."

 d-usa wrote:
In this thread: people are offended because they are told to try not to offend people.

Pretty much this, seriously I haven't seen people this offended by something since Birth of a Nation.

 d-usa wrote:
In this thread: people are offended because they are told to try not to offend people.

I think we've all learned a valuable lesson. Political science classes are a waste of time.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
In this thread: people are offended because they are told to try not to offend people.

I think we've all learned a valuable lesson. Political science classes are a waste of time.

This. Save the outrage for when it's about a field that isn't just a license for professors to lecture about their personal opinions for three hours a week.

 Peregrine wrote:


This. Save the outrage for when it's about a field that isn't just a license for professors to lecture about their personal opinions for three hours a week.

why do you think I'm an economics major now

This thing where people whinge about the poor little white male is so fething stupid.

Full credit to Glorioski for getting the full quote and showing this as nothing more than the inane whining of a college kid.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, but thats not what the school is asking. They are asking the students to be free of any white male american influence that might effect their work.

Read the full quote given by Glorioski.
“to write and speak in a way that does not assume American-ness, maleness, whiteness, heterosexuality, middle-class status, etc. to be the norm.”

That doesn't mean the student has to stop being a white male American, it means he has to stop assuming that's how it is for everyone.

Society has basically approved of being sexist and racist against white males. How is this not wrong?

No, it hasn't. You're making that up in your head.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Are we really looking this hard for something to be outraged about?

I feel that we are just receiving reposts from some sort of "this is what you (the hardworking, patriotic, freedom-loving WASP) should rage about today" mailing list...

A college kid is whining about bs. I must let the internet know about this shocking new thing.

whembly wrote:

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Seems fair enough to me.

So... when YOU write a paper, can you disregard your (looks at your map)“UK-ness, maleness, whiteness, heterosexuality, middle-class status” ??(I'm assuming that you're UK/male/white/straight/mid-class... if I'm wrong, sorry)

Heh, whenever I write papers, I unapologetically write with the voice of a white/male/straight/educated/able-bodied/leftist/humanist/progressive-imperialist/upper-middle-class voice.

I can't disguise it, and pussyfooting around it bores me.

to write and speak in a way that does not assume American-ness, maleness, whiteness, heterosexuality, middle-class status, etc. to be the norm.”

However, this is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask, and anyone incapable of doing so is a tool.

d-usa wrote:In this thread: people are offended because they are told to try not to offend people.

Really? What about those who are not so much offended, as irritated, that someone would assume inherent biases could be so easily disregarded without the cultural appropriation of another's voice?

 whembly wrote:
Naw... just engaging a health discussion amongst the Dakkanauts that these things exist.

So, you don't see a problem with it?

What the class should say is to check in ALL prejudice at the door and not singling out whites/american/straights/etc...

Read the quote in full, provided by Glorioski. It isn't about only white men hiding their biases. It is about no longer assuming that everyone else shares your biases, which is a privilege only white men have.

It is only common sense to recognise that while we all have bias, some of us find our bias more readily accepted by society at large because they share that bias. So, whereas a Jamaican albino lesbian might find they regularly have to explain that given their upbringing they just can't get into the Superbowl, a straight white dude will not have to spend any time at all having to explain that having grown up playing and watching the Superbowl, he happens to really love it.

She would have to say 'having grown up in Jamaica hiding from the sun and disguising my love for women, I just can't find anything to like about a game of American Football'. Whereas he would just say 'I fething love the Superbowl' and everyone would assume that's a totally normal way of looking at things - he wouldn't have to justify it by way of his POV.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
So... being white/straight/mid-class/american is... what... ?

A state of being, like any other.

Ever notice how people will say 'oh the xyz have such an amazing culture, with their parades and music and whatever else'. And then they'll make a comment about they have no culture. Ignoring that the music they listen to, the sports they attend, the movies they watch, the restaraunts they eat at - they're all culture.

But because it's their mainstream culture, they assume it's a universal thing. That's what the guy is asking of his students - that those of you who are lucky enough to have been able to assume everyone you meet inherently shares your experience - write as if that assumption isn't true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I can't really write from someone else's perspecitive, because its theirs and not mine.

The students aren't being asked to write from someone else's perspective. They're being asked to write as if their perspective wasn't the norm.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Except that is NOT what was being said. It was asking White Males to write from a neutral perspective. It was explicitly singling out white males. Which is obviously racist and sexist.

We can't have double standards here.

No. The white male students were being asked to write under the idea that their perspective wasn't the norm.

You wouldn't ask the blind, eskimo, asexual student to write as if his perspective wasn't the norm. It would make no fething sense, because very obviously the blind, eskimo, asexual student hasn't grown up thinking that, because he would have gone through life very fething obviously seeing that hardly anyone else had a perspective on life quite like his.

I'd say not including the full quote was pretty disingenuous. It wasn't particularly bad in and of itself as historically, the narrative of the United States has been that of a middle class, white, christian dude.

But still - that is historically, hardly where we are at today, especially in a college environment. Would it have hurt anyone to to say - let's try to disregard any bias based on race, class, or creed you may personally hold? It's fewer letters. Save on the overhead. Fewer dead trees. Less ink used. And I mean really, are white, middle class American men that vast of a majority of in political science classes these days, that this is such a serious problem to be addressed?

 Ouze wrote:

That's actually the whole reason that site exists. It's mission is to send conservative students to liberal classes and schools to report how... listen man, I don't know. I mean, no one gets drafted to go to a college, if you don't like the curriculum you're free to vote with your dollars.

That is fairly terrible logic. If someone legitimately feels this is racist, sexist, and culturalist, your advice is to suck it up and go somewhere else? Not complain, just go to the laundromat that favors their declination of character?

 Bromsy wrote:
But still - that is historically, hardly where we are at today, especially in a college environment.

That's not true at all. While the professors might be in a better position, society as a whole isn't, and sheltered white middle-class college students certainly aren't. They might be by the time they graduate, but only because people still make an effort to do things like this.

And I mean really, are white, middle class American men that vast of a majority of in political science classes these days, that this is such a serious problem to be addressed?

It's not about being a majority in the class, it's about being a majority in society as a whole. Even if they only make up 1% of the class they're still the 1% of the class that is most likely to have spent the past 15+ years of their life being used to having everything around them reflect their average life experiences and opinions.

That is fairly terrible logic. If someone legitimately feels this is racist, sexist, and culturalist, your advice is to suck it up and go somewhere else? Not complain, just go to the laundromat that favors their declination of character?

Sure, it's kind of a harsh thing to say if there's legitimate outrage. However, the point is that these stories are often little more than manufactured outrage, created by right-wing tinfoil hatters just for the sake of being angry at imaginary "leftist education abuse". Once you strip away all the false controversy and attempts to generate page views (and ad income, of course) what you're left with is some angry privileged people ranting about how unfair it is that they had to be exposed to something they don't 100% agree with.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
But still - that is historically, hardly where we are at today, especially in a college environment.

That's not true at all. While the professors might be in a better position, society as a whole isn't, and sheltered white middle-class college students certainly aren't. They might be by the time they graduate, but only because people still make an effort to do things like this.

Right, but aren't women the majority overall in college, let alone in social sciences? I mean, instructing people to ignore the traditional bias in the nation's narrative is acceptable, but I notice you are ignoring when I said

 Bromsy wrote:
Would it have hurt anyone to to say - let's try to disregard any bias based on race, class, or creed you may personally hold? It's fewer letters. Save on the overhead. Fewer dead trees. Less ink used.

Is the way that the professor approached things significantly better than my idea? Is there some appreciably difference in goal or result?

 Bromsy wrote:
And I mean really, are white, middle class American men that vast of a majority of in political science classes these days, that this is such a serious problem to be addressed?

 Peregrine wrote:
It's not about being a majority in the class, it's about being a majority in society as a whole. Even if they only make up 1% of the class they're still the 1% of the class that is most likely to have spent the past 15+ years of their life being used to having everything around them reflect their average life experiences and opinions.

I guess I don't get your point. I've seen people argue in this thread that this is basically a reminder to white american males that there are opinions on various subjects that don't fit their cultural narrative. I think this is a decent sentiment, but it really ought to be applied equally. Just because many white american males deem the cultural narrative of america to be that of their own socioeconomic group hardly means that they are the only group who limits their perceptions. All groups could benefit from limiting their biases and attempting to see things from a more neutral standpoint.

How do you apply

"You are the majority in society, but that doesn't mean that your way is the right way"

to minorities?

That isn't what you should apply. What you should apply is... our goal is to mitigate bias, so disregard your preconceptions... Unless I missed something and the specific goal of the class was to disregard the majority opinion in favor of the minority opinion?

 Bromsy wrote:
That isn't what you should apply. What you should apply is... our goal is to mitigate bias, so disregard your preconceptions...

Did you miss the part where a big part of the problem is that middle-class straight white men (especially in the college student age range) far too often assume that their life IS the neutral perspective, and that they don't have any preconceptions because they're just normal and average? That's the whole point of calling them out specifically.

 Bromsy wrote:
But still - that is historically, hardly where we are at today, especially in a college environment. Would it have hurt anyone to to say - let's try to disregard any bias based on race, class, or creed you may personally hold? It's fewer letters. Save on the overhead. Fewer dead trees. Less ink used. And I mean really, are white, middle class American men that vast of a majority of in political science classes these days, that this is such a serious problem to be addressed?

But it isn't saying to disregard any creed or bias. It's saying write as if not everyone else holds that same bias. So you can still hold your view, but examine why you believe and look to write it in such a way that is makes sense for someone who doesn't necessarily come from the same background as you.

Which is actually just a good tip for writing in general.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bromsy wrote:
That isn't what you should apply. What you should apply is... our goal is to mitigate bias, so disregard your preconceptions... Unless I missed something and the specific goal of the class was to disregard the majority opinion in favor of the minority opinion?

The goal isn't to mitigate bias or have anyone disregard their preconceptions. It's to have students understand their bias, understand how it developed from their own experiences, and to account for that in their writing. So you aren't required to just drop your belief, but you are expected to state your belief and state why you believe it. Look to convince the other party of it, or at least have the other party understand your POV, instead of just assuming that because yuo've grown up with your views out there in the mainstream then everyone must think the same.

Whembly posted a make-white-conservative-dudes-angry-by-distorting-an-incident story? Stop the presses.

I remember when Fraz used to post every piece of junk like this that someone forwarded to his inbox. Some of them were literally years old; junk stories that just floated around people's email boxes because 99% of the people who read them would prefer to be angry over nothing than to bother fact-checking to get the entire quote.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
That isn't what you should apply. What you should apply is... our goal is to mitigate bias, so disregard your preconceptions...

Did you miss the part where a big part of the problem is that middle-class straight white men (especially in the college student age range) far too often assume that their life IS the neutral perspective, and that they don't have any preconceptions because they're just normal and average? That's the whole point of calling them out specifically.

I think I did miss that part, because it is something you came up with on your own. I think plenty of people think they are neutral when they are not, and encouraging everyone who is not part of a specific group to think that they are neutral is a bad idea.

 sebster wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
But still - that is historically, hardly where we are at today, especially in a college environment. Would it have hurt anyone to to say - let's try to disregard any bias based on race, class, or creed you may personally hold? It's fewer letters. Save on the overhead. Fewer dead trees. Less ink used. And I mean really, are white, middle class American men that vast of a majority of in political science classes these days, that this is such a serious problem to be addressed? /quote]

But it isn't saying to disregard any creed or bias. It's saying write as if not everyone else holds that same bias. So you can still hold your view, but examine why you believe and look to write it in such a way that is makes sense for someone who doesn't necessarily come from the same background as you.

Which is actually just a good tip for writing in general.

 Bromsy wrote:
That isn't what you should apply. What you should apply is... our goal is to mitigate bias, so disregard your preconceptions... Unless I missed something and the specific goal of the class was to disregard the majority opinion in favor of the minority opinion?

The goal isn't to mitigate bias or have anyone disregard their preconceptions. It's to have students understand their bias, understand how it developed from their own experiences, and to account for that in their writing. So you aren't required to just drop your belief, but you are expected to state your belief and state why you believe it. Look to convince the other party of it, or at least have the other party understand your POV, instead of just assuming that because yuo've grown up with your views out there in the mainstream then everyone must think the same.

That made me look like I was arguing with myself, and I am no where near that drunk. But I would agree that holding a bias is fine if you can defend it.


okay, the edit made it better.

 Bromsy wrote:
That made me look like I was arguing with myself, and I am no where near that drunk. But I would agree that holding a bias is fine if you can defend it.


okay, the edit made it better.

And I just noticed I had a typo in my sig. It appears I've lost the art of proofreading. Anyway, cool that you get it now.

 sebster wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
That made me look like I was arguing with myself, and I am no where near that drunk. But I would agree that holding a bias is fine if you can defend it.


okay, the edit made it better.

And I just noticed I had a typo in my sig. It appears I've lost the art of proofreading. Anyway, cool that you get it now.

Your edits made your points clearer, and it's not like I disagree categorically. I'm just saying ...if your goal is to mitigate bias apply that across the board. If your goal is to make people think about the general white male bias in history, make that the point of your class, If your goal is to have people understand their biases, don't ask that certain biases be disregarded outright while ignoring that others exist.

 Bromsy wrote:
Your edits made your points clearer, and it's not like I disagree categorically. I'm just saying ...if your goal is to mitigate bias apply that across the board. If your goal is to make people think about the general white male bias in history, make that the point of your class, If your goal is to have people understand their biases, don't ask that certain biases be disregarded outright while ignoring that others exist.

But I'm saying the goal isn't to mitigate bias. The request wasn't to write as if you weren't a white guy. The request was to write as if the reader wasn't, and therefore didn't necessarily share the same perspective. And that, basically, is a kind of thinking that only the majority has.

 sebster wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
Your edits made your points clearer, and it's not like I disagree categorically. I'm just saying ...if your goal is to mitigate bias apply that across the board. If your goal is to make people think about the general white male bias in history, make that the point of your class, If your goal is to have people understand their biases, don't ask that certain biases be disregarded outright while ignoring that others exist.

But I'm saying the goal isn't to mitigate bias. The request wasn't to write as if you weren't a white guy. The request was to write as if the reader wasn't, and therefore didn't necessarily share the same perspective. And that, basically, is a kind of thinking that only the majority has.

Yeah, like I said, I'm not really disagreeing with you. I got that her point was to write as if you were getting outside the whole white male american general narrative our country has. I just think it's goddamned silly to pick out that one thing to focus on, unless the whole goal of your class is to point out that specific bias. If it's all just tangential to the point of the class, that is when I think grabbing up one perspective and saying "pretend like this thing isn't there" or "this thing is worse than this thing." is actively bad.

 Bromsy wrote:
I think I did miss that part, because it is something you came up with on your own.

That's not my own idea, and it's hardly a controversial one.

I think plenty of people think they are neutral when they are not, and encouraging everyone who is not part of a specific group to think that they are neutral is a bad idea.

Except that's not true at all.

First of all, it's not just about neutrality, it's about assuming you're the default. For example, look at most tv shows. Have you ever noticed that the default race for a character is white, and non-white characters are frequently forced into a role that is defined by their race (for example, "the black guy")? If you're an 18 year old white guy, probably not. On the other hand, if you're an 18 year old black guy in the same class you probably understand a lot better how rare characters like you are. The white guy needs a reminder that they need to make a conscious effort to look past society's messages and avoid thinking of themselves as the default, the black guy has been getting that reminder for their whole life.

Second, nobody is telling everyone else that they're already neutral. The professor isn't holding up a hypothetical poor gay black woman who just immigrated to the US as the perfect model of neutrality, they're just focusing the "be aware of your privilege" statement on the people who tend to need it most, and not giving redundant advice to people who don't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bromsy wrote:
Yeah, like I said, I'm not really disagreeing with you. I got that her point was to write as if you were getting outside the whole white male american general narrative our country has. I just think it's goddamned silly to pick out that one thing to focus on, unless the whole goal of your class is to point out that specific bias. If it's all just tangential to the point of the class, that is when I think grabbing up one perspective and saying "pretend like this thing isn't there" or "this thing is worse than this thing." is actively bad.

You keep arguing like we're living in this fantasy world where every group of people has an equal share in society's default messages. In that case sure, your opinion would be right, and everyone would need an equal amount of "be aware of your privilege and biases" statement. However, in the real world, it's entirely appropriate to recognize the fact that some groups get a MUCH greater amount of "you are the default" messages than others.

 Peregrine wrote:



You keep arguing like we're living in this fantasy world where every group of people has an equal share in society's default messages. In that case sure, your opinion would be right, and everyone would need an equal amount of "be aware of your privilege and biases" statement. However, in the real world, it's entirely appropriate to recognize the fact that some groups get a MUCH greater amount of "you are the default" messages than others.

Are you arguing with me or with someone else in this thread? No one is saying the things you are railing against. No one is saying people should by default come at issues from the perspective of white middle class american males. It seems like you have a tenuous grasp on what I was getting at at best. I mean, you made the point that somehow it's wrong for a society that is majority white to make the default character in tv shows white? As if that is somehow relevant? Are we even talking about the same thing here? I'm talking about a class that assumes that all white male middle class americans have a bias that needs discarding, whilst everyone else has useful or at least interesting insight. Once again, since it seems to be ignored - if we are talking about simply disregarding our countries historical narrative as being from a white male perspective, that is one thing. If we are talking about disregarding our personalities influencing our work if we are of a certain persona, and only that persona, that is something else.

I guess I do live in a 'fantasy world' where I expect equitable treatment for all, regardless of whether they have an equal share in the "default message of society." But I guess you are someone who believes life should be fair, instead of equal. You seem to be conjuring things whole from you imagination. Who else has been talking about assuming you are the default? That only entered the discussion when you made it up.

Us being the default is the whole point of the statements made by the professor.

And that just because we are the majority and the default doesn't mean that we should assume everybody has the same experiences as us. Pretty basic stuff really.

 Bromsy wrote:
Yeah, like I said, I'm not really disagreeing with you. I got that her point was to write as if you were getting outside the whole white male american general narrative our country has. I just think it's goddamned silly to pick out that one thing to focus on, unless the whole goal of your class is to point out that specific bias. If it's all just tangential to the point of the class, that is when I think grabbing up one perspective and saying "pretend like this thing isn't there" or "this thing is worse than this thing." is actively bad.

Yeah, it does seem something of an odd thing to throw into the middle of a class like that. But it's college, you get professors with strange little priorities floating in to their classes. Some of the time that's a good thing, some of the time it's a bad thing, but most of the time it's a pointless thing.

At worst, this odd little tangent is a pointless thing.

Were they saying it in the context of writing essays/papers or just in general?

 Bromsy wrote:
I mean, you made the point that somehow it's wrong for a society that is majority white to make the default character in tv shows white?

I didn't say that it's ethically wrong, just that it happens.

As if that is somehow relevant?

Of course it's relevant. It's an example of the kind of "I am the default" thinking that the professor is trying to get white middle-class male students to think about.

I'm talking about a class that assumes that all white male middle class americans have a bias that needs discarding, whilst everyone else has useful or at least interesting insight.

Which is a straw man.

Once again, since it seems to be ignored - if we are talking about simply disregarding our countries historical narrative as being from a white male perspective, that is one thing. If we are talking about disregarding our personalities influencing our work if we are of a certain persona, and only that persona, that is something else.

Nobody is saying that you need to disregard your personality entirely, not even the professor.

Who else has been talking about assuming you are the default? That only entered the discussion when you made it up.

It entered the discussion because that's what the professor was talking about. Seriously, go read the original article AND the later comments which give the entire context of the quote.

 d-usa wrote:
Us being the default is the whole point of the statements made by the professor.

And that just because we are the majority and the default doesn't mean that we should assume everybody has the same experiences as us. Pretty basic stuff really.

The professor can make all the points she wants. The discussion I'm involved in is on whether it's cool to say to one specific group, even if they are the majority, "Hey, knock off all that having an opinion based on your life experiences and stuff." whilst saying to other groups "Hey, keep on having opinions based on your life experiences and stuff." That is what I am saying, as much as I can reduce it. I don't get if you and peregrine are going off on tangents from what I actually said and filling in blanks that I didn't speak to or arguing with opinions other people posted.

 sebster wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
Yeah, like I said, I'm not really disagreeing with you. I got that her point was to write as if you were getting outside the whole white male american general narrative our country has. I just think it's goddamned silly to pick out that one thing to focus on, unless the whole goal of your class is to point out that specific bias. If it's all just tangential to the point of the class, that is when I think grabbing up one perspective and saying "pretend like this thing isn't there" or "this thing is worse than this thing." is actively bad.

Yeah, it does seem something of an odd thing to throw into the middle of a class like that. But it's college, you get professors with strange little priorities floating in to their classes. Some of the time that's a good thing, some of the time it's a bad thing, but most of the time it's a pointless thing.

At worst, this odd little tangent is a pointless thing.

Yes, but pointless things, liberally sprinkled with booze seem like less pointless things. I'm satisfied that at least one person read what I wrote, so I am content; and sleepy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
I mean, you made the point that somehow it's wrong for a society that is majority white to make the default character in tv shows white?

I didn't say that it's ethically wrong, just that it happens.

As if that is somehow relevant?

Of course it's relevant. It's an example of the kind of "I am the default" thinking that the professor is trying to get white middle-class male students to think about.

I'm talking about a class that assumes that all white male middle class americans have a bias that needs discarding, whilst everyone else has useful or at least interesting insight.

Which is a straw man.

Once again, since it seems to be ignored - if we are talking about simply disregarding our countries historical narrative as being from a white male perspective, that is one thing. If we are talking about disregarding our personalities influencing our work if we are of a certain persona, and only that persona, that is something else.

Nobody is saying that you need to disregard your personality entirely, not even the professor.

Who else has been talking about assuming you are the default? That only entered the discussion when you made it up.

It entered the discussion because that's what the professor was talking about. Seriously, go read the original article AND the later comments which give the entire context of the quote.

Great Odin's Ravens man, it's like you are arguing with the shadow of what you think I might have meant.

 Bromsy wrote:
The discussion I'm involved in is on whether it's cool to say to one specific group, even if they are the majority, "Hey, knock off all that having an opinion based on your life experiences and stuff." whilst saying to other groups "Hey, keep on having opinions based on your life experiences and stuff."

Which isn't what the professor said.

Great Odin's Ravens man, it's like you are arguing with the shadow of what you think I might have meant.

Maybe you should stop drinking and posting then?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
The discussion I'm involved in is on whether it's cool to say to one specific group, even if they are the majority, "Hey, knock off all that having an opinion based on your life experiences and stuff." whilst saying to other groups "Hey, keep on having opinions based on your life experiences and stuff."

Which isn't what the professor said.

Great Odin's Ravens man, it's like you are arguing with the shadow of what you think I might have meant.

Maybe you should stop drinking and posting then?

It's certainly what she implied. And yeah, I don't think that's the issue, but being the compassionate soul that I am, if it makes the ghost of your reading comprehension rest more easily then we can go with that.

 Bromsy wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Us being the default is the whole point of the statements made by the professor.

And that just because we are the majority and the default doesn't mean that we should assume everybody has the same experiences as us. Pretty basic stuff really.

The professor can make all the points she wants. The discussion I'm involved in is on whether it's cool to say to one specific group, even if they are the majority, "Hey, knock off all that having an opinion based on your life experiences and stuff." whilst saying to other groups "Hey, keep on having opinions based on your life experiences and stuff." That is what I am saying, as much as I can reduce it. I don't get if you and peregrine are going off on tangents from what I actually said and filling in blanks that I didn't speak to or arguing with opinions other people posted.

Your discussion has nothing to do with the post then, unless you have some sort of idea how to tell a minority group to "stop thinking that everybody thinks just like you just because you are the majority".

 d-usa wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Us being the default is the whole point of the statements made by the professor.

And that just because we are the majority and the default doesn't mean that we should assume everybody has the same experiences as us. Pretty basic stuff really.

The professor can make all the points she wants. The discussion I'm involved in is on whether it's cool to say to one specific group, even if they are the majority, "Hey, knock off all that having an opinion based on your life experiences and stuff." whilst saying to other groups "Hey, keep on having opinions based on your life experiences and stuff." That is what I am saying, as much as I can reduce it. I don't get if you and peregrine are going off on tangents from what I actually said and filling in blanks that I didn't speak to or arguing with opinions other people posted.

Your discussion has nothing to do with the post then, unless you have some sort of idea how to tell a minority group to "stop thinking that everybody thinks just like you just because you are the majority".

There is a startling lack of grey area in your thinking considering we are discussing an institute which is supposed to foster intelligent debate. I mean really, the fact that white american middle class males are almost certainly not the majority in the class isn't enough to make them think outside their ironclad preconceptions? Only white middle class american males can possibly fall into the trap of thinking their preconceptions are reality? And of course, no middle class white american male could possibly realize that everyone isn't of the same opinions as they are without a syllabus laying it out for them. It is silly, and the whole idea laid out is open for debate on its relevance and equability. You have just been making blanket declarative statements, which are really just your opinion, and you should couch them as such.

Well, it is your opinion that people who have been the minolrity their entire life would somehow think that their viewpoints represent the majority?

And if you are trying to foster intelligent debate, then helping students get rid of the basic idea that "my experiences growing up as a member of the majority culture and being surrounded by people that are just like me means that my experiences are the norm and everybody is like me" is a good start.

But having trouble seeing that is a common problem if you are part of the majority.

 Hordini wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It is the instructor's place to instruct, and the students' place to be instructed.

Nope.

It's the Student's place to seek knowledge... Instructors are there to help facilitate.

Small distinction, but very important.

Not in Accountancy.

You know this thread is about a political science class, right? And the teacher as facilitator/student as knowledge seeker model could certainly work in accountancy as well.

It is an important part of many disciplines to learn how to put aside feelings arising from one's personal identity and try to examine issues from a neutral viewpoint, or with empathy towards people who are different.

Possibly the most difficult personal identity to put aside is that of member of the majority power elite -- in the USA, the white middle-class male -- because membership of that group tends to insulate a person from realisation that things aren't the same for everyone. OTOH, all minority group members have a common experience of being part of a minority, low power group.

Thus I would argue that to urge WASP students to try and think outside the WASP box is a very sensible guidance on a course such as political science.

It's the "social justice" part that made me laugh out loud.

And at everyone defending this drek. I know the soft sciences aren't exactly known for credibility, but c'mon.

All I'm getting from this is that we should all think like legion from mass effect. No gender, no race.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Whembly posted a make-white-conservative-dudes-angry-by-distorting-an-incident story? Stop the presses.

I remember when Fraz used to post every piece of junk like this that someone forwarded to his inbox. Some of them were literally years old; junk stories that just floated around people's email boxes because 99% of the people who read them would prefer to be angry over nothing than to bother fact-checking to get the entire quote.

I'm very curious about the reactions here. I find this interesting... I really do.

So... could've I posted the whole article in here? (I did post the link). I thought was generally frowned upon in here...???

Carry on!

 whembly wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Whembly posted a make-white-conservative-dudes-angry-by-distorting-an-incident story? Stop the presses.

I remember when Fraz used to post every piece of junk like this that someone forwarded to his inbox. Some of them were literally years old; junk stories that just floated around people's email boxes because 99% of the people who read them would prefer to be angry over nothing than to bother fact-checking to get the entire quote.

I'm very curious about the reactions here. I find this interesting... I really do.

So... could've I posted the whole article in here? (I did post the link). I thought was generally frowned upon in here...???

Carry on!

Wait am I being picked on.

And my inbox now has iomportant things like "Reminder X is the deadline for scholarships for Aggieville" and of course very important Victoria's Secret updates.

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Whembly posted a make-white-conservative-dudes-angry-by-distorting-an-incident story? Stop the presses.

I remember when Fraz used to post every piece of junk like this that someone forwarded to his inbox. Some of them were literally years old; junk stories that just floated around people's email boxes because 99% of the people who read them would prefer to be angry over nothing than to bother fact-checking to get the entire quote.

I'm very curious about the reactions here. I find this interesting... I really do.

So... could've I posted the whole article in here? (I did post the link). I thought was generally frowned upon in here...???

Carry on!

Wait am I being picked on.

And my inbox now has iomportant things like "Reminder X is the deadline for scholarships for Aggieville" and of course very important Victoria's Secret updates.

Wait... you've been holding out on us...
...
...
...
...
...
Come on man...
...
...
...
...
WHERE ARE THE VICTORIA'S SECRET UPDATES! (yes, I'm too lazy to use the interweb)

 whembly wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Whembly posted a make-white-conservative-dudes-angry-by-distorting-an-incident story? Stop the presses.

I'm very curious about the reactions here. I find this interesting... I really do.

So... could've I posted the whole article in here? (I did post the link). I thought was generally frowned upon in here...???

You can quote a whole article if you like (many do), although it’s often less readable inside a forum post/quote box than on its home page, and it might be missing pretty graphics and formatting which would be better viewed on the origin site. Often the better thing to do is excerpt it, quoting the first few paragraphs, providing a link and your thoughts or a question for discussion. That’s fine.

The points I was making (or reiterating, as others had made them before) were:

1. This is another “manufactured outrage” story, where the article’s author went looking for something to get people angry about, and to that end distorted and exaggerated what really happened, when it’s actually completely innocuous.
2. You do this kind of a lot. And you don’t seem to give these kind of articles much critical evaluation before regurgitating them onto this forum.
3. We’ve seen this kind of pattern of posting behavior before in other members. It seems like some folks get lots of these kind of junk conspiracy/outrage of the week/our country’s going to hell/Liberals gone wild articles forwarded to their email, and just repost them here without thinking much about it beyond “Wow!” Or “Sounds about right!”

I get a bunch of unsolicited crap to one of my emails too. Of course, the stuff I get is mostly from liberal organizations and PACs. Obviously in election season it was tons of emails looking for money to back various candidates, and talking about how bad their opponents were. Other times it’s stuff from Nation of Change, Firedoglake, Cuentame, NARAL, Union of Concerned Scientists, Don Siegelman’s family, Color of Change, Bradley Manning’s defense fund, People for the American Way, Bernie Sanders, Brave New Films, etc. Generally they want to solicit support for a given cause or issue, whether donations, petition signatures, or emails or phone calls to politicians regarding various issues. Often times they’ll try to motivate interest by talking about something awful someone they’re politically opposed to is doing or wants to do.

When I get one of these, if I have time to read it and don’t just delete it, I apply some critical evaluation to it. Not all the things I’m asked to be angry about actually make me angry. Very rarely do I actually forward them to anyone else or repost something here on Dakka. And again, if I do, I read it carefully first and try to make sure it’s not deceptive or misleading.

This story truncates the professor’s actual quote to distort the meaning of what he said, to make it look more offensive. It’s a bad story not just because it’s manufacturing outrage (which is a tactic which motivates people to the polls, but is not very constructive or good for dialogue), but because it engages in deception to do so.

It’s our responsibility to treat incoming information coming from our “side” of the political sphere as critically as we do pronouncements and claims made by people with whom we disagree. Obviously that can be difficult to do, but we’re all better off if we don’t just assume something’s right because it fits with our political worldview.

--
Which actually brings us back rather close to the point of the professor’s comments. Which basically amount to:

Hey, us guys who are in the majority and around whom most of our culture is centered? We need to make an extra effort to challenge our assumptions and be conscious of our voices when we write. Because our life experiences are constantly being reinforced as being the default expectation of “how life is”, it’s usually a harder task for us to set that aside.

Here are a few examples of assumptions about life which I might have to correct for if I was writing a paper:

Race related: If I walk or drive by a cop, he will pay me no special attention. If one pulls me over, and I’m respectful and polite, there’s a decent chance I’ll just get a warning. If I visit my wife’s relatives in Eastern Europe, I don’t have to worry about any particular prejudice toward me.

Gender related: A public restroom by default, includes standing-use urinals in its design. If I were to picture one off the top of my head, of course I would usually think first of one with them, as those are the ones I generally use. A less funny one- If I dress up “sexy” to go to a night club in the city (which for a dude includes maybe a fitted shirt, possibly with a v-neck and/or showing more of the bicep, and a more form-fitting pair of jeans), I can comfortably and safely walk back to my car by myself, without taking precautions against being followed by a creepy dude I turned down at the club.

Nationality: Electoral politics revolves around the opposition of two (and functionally only two) parties. Political history only goes back a couple of hundred hears, and STARTS with the principle that all men are equal before the law, and have certain fundamental and unalienable rights. Among which is carrying a firearm.

Religion: I don’t have this one, but if I were a member of any major Christian sect, it could be something like- If I move to a new city, I can expect there to be at least one, if not multiple, church(es) of my denomination at which I can attend services. Full-time clergy are on staff to provide services and counseling if I am in need. I can join the choir and sing familiar hymns which I grew up with.

The above kind of assumptions inform our perceptions about what the world is like, and they need to be accounted for. It’s completely appropriate for a professor to remind us of that fact, especially if we’re in the privileged position of not having them challenged on a daily basis on TV and in the news.

Really, the only story here is “Article Writer Misunderstands Professor; Distorts Statement and Draws False Conclusions From it to Generate Ad Revenue Through Readers Getting Their Anger Fix”.

Um... "looks sheepishly around"... ^^^ /thread

Ragnar... have an exalt.

(it was getting quiet after the election and I grabbed something meaty)

Thank you sir. I think you're a good dude; but man, you frustrate me sometimes.

Mannahnin is getting really quite awesome.


That is all.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Thank you sir. I think you're a good dude; but man, you frustrate me sometimes.

I know you wuv me...

And Seb too!

And everyone here in OT!