University to students: All Whites are Racist

[Rino]

Yes - I did actually. Are you judging the content, based on the titles of these articles? Why don't you take a moment in read my posts above where I provided an excerpt from Detour Spotting for White Anti-Racists. I skimmed through all of the articles and found nothing to support the claims of the World Net.

You really just proved my point though, so thank you.

Not the titles, read the content.

What point? That a conservative article brought this to attention and therefore must be inaccurate?

 

[Masterj]

Probably this document: http://thefire.org/pdfs/6d5cf620fd4a8403251186fce5fee2ce.pdf

Sounds like the "one-on-one" meetings are mandatory as they are all dated.

Also, check out page 8. It lists the questions:

1. When were you first made aware of your race?
2. When did you discover your sexual identity?

and so on...

Completely inappropriate in my opinion.

I didn't see this document listed anywhere on the University of Delaware website. Those questions are sample questions. What happens if the student doesn't answer a question they are uncomfortable with? If they are forced to answer, I don't agree with that. However, I can understand their intent here. You have a bunch of young adults living away from home (many for the first time) and from all different walks of life. I believe this is their attempt to show people that they are not all the same and intolerance won't be accepted in their dorms.

 

[blue_the_puppy]

Probably this document: http://thefire.org/pdfs/6d5cf620fd4a8403251186fce5fee2ce.pdf

Sounds like the "one-on-one" meetings are mandatory as they are all dated.

Also, check out page 8. It lists the questions:

1. When were you first made aware of your race?
2. When did you discover your sexual identity?

and so on...

Completely inappropriate in my opinion.

thanks for the document, but i'm not connecting these hall meetings with the "all whites are racists" thing. the mandatory one-on-one meetings just sound like plain old diversity training, i had something similar when i was a student at u of michigan ..

 

[Masterj]

Not the titles, read the content.

What point? That a conservative article brought this to attention and therefore must be inaccurate?

LOL - that it is not what I am referring to. So what is your summation after reading those articles?

 

[GlitchWizard]

I have dealt with that also from black & white Glitch...but I don't hold my tongue. It's plain rudeness and lack of home training on MANNERS!! Mine were taught to address adults as Ma'am or Sir, hold doors for women, etc....they still do. I feel sorry your daughter has to be in such an intolerable environment. I also extremely DISLIKE people like the principal you spoke of.

It is rude. I'm not sure what the message is supposed to be - maybe I'm just not seeing it. I do want to say "Does your Mom know you are rude to strangers?" I'm afraid it wouldn't do any good, and only serve to fuel the anger they think they feel towards me. I'm glad your kids aren't going to be like that. I'm glad mine won't either! There is something pleasing about a young person holding open a door nowdays, isn't there?

 

[Paladin]

I didn't see this document listed anywhere on the University of Delaware website. Those questions are sample questions. What happens if the student doesn't answer a question they are uncomfortable with? If they are forced to answer, I don't agree with that. However, I can understand their intent here. You have a bunch of young adults living away from home (many for the first time) and from all different walks of life. I believe this is their attempt to show people that they are not all the same and intolerance won't be accepted in their dorms.

I just don't see the need for this. I went to a liberal arts college and had no problems with people of other races. I even ended up living with a black person and we became good friends. My sophomore year, I lived in a hall with all Asian students and we got along beautifully. Are they saying that college-aged kids aren't smart enough to handle working things out themselves?

I can see this being a useful tool if a student has been caught being intolerant and this is part of their punishment, but to make this a part of the residential life on campus at a public school is a bit overboard.

From what I understand (and have read from student blogs), even if you opt not to open up to their questions they will reward you with MORE one-on-one meetings to try and make you see things their way. That's WRONG. This also opens the door for making people feel guilty for their religious beliefs.

 

[Masterj]

I just don't see the need for this. I went to a liberal arts college and had no problems with people of other races. I even ended up living with a black person and we became good friends. My sophomore year, I lived in a hall with all Asian students and we got along beautifully. Are they saying that college-aged kids aren't smart enough to handle working things out themselves?

I can see this being a useful tool if a student has been caught being intolerant and this is part of their punishment, but to make this a part of the residential life on campus at a public school is a bit overboard.

From what I understand (and have read from student blogs), even if you opt not to open up to their questions they will reward you with MORE one-on-one meetings to try and make you see things their way. That's WRONG. This also opens the door for making people feel guilty for their religious beliefs.

You might not see the need for this, but maybe they had issues in the past and this is their attempt to help the situation. I certainly do think MOST college students can handle working things out themselves. MOST. But there are always the ones who don't. If there is a problem, the university can't just act like it doesn't exist. I went to school in South Carolina and Rhode Island, and both schools had numerous racial incidents as well as issues over sexual orientation. The difference was that one school chose to address the problem head on while the other chose to pretend they didn't exist.

In regard to what you said about one-on-one meetings, I agree that is going over the line.

 

[Paladin]

thanks for the document, but i'm not connecting these hall meetings with the "all whites are racists" thing. the mandatory one-on-one meetings just sound like plain old diversity training, i had something similar when i was a student at u of michigan ..

This document was given to all RAs as a training packet. They are to take this information and use it to teach their residents. That is how I am connecting the hall meetings.

Here is an excerpt:

"A RACIST: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e. of European decent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists..."

It basically insinuates that because you are white, you are automatically privileged and therefore racist.

http://www.thefire.org/pdfs/3d0208922083e5d59664be8371ab5f0f.pdf

It's essentially making white people feel for being born white.

 

[Nova]

Probably this document: http://thefire.org/pdfs/6d5cf620fd4a8403251186fce5fee2ce.pdf

Sounds like the "one-on-one" meetings are mandatory as they are all dated.

Also, check out page 8. It lists the questions:

1. When were you first made aware of your race?
2. When did you discover your sexual identity?

and so on...

Completely inappropriate in my opinion.

Why? Many students come from backgrounds where they are scared to death to discuss their sexual identity. How would you change that without asking?

 

[Paladin]

Why? Many students come from backgrounds where they are scared to death to discuss their sexual identity. How would you change that without asking?

Why would a university need to know this information? To what end? If a person wants to discuss their sexual orientation they can join a support group. Colleges have plenty of those, and they're free and open for anyone to join. To automatically build this into the college lifestyle makes no sense to me.

 

[Nova]

This document was given to all RAs as a training packet. They are to take this information and use it to teach their residents. That is how I am connecting the hall meetings.

Here is an excerpt:

"A RACIST: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e. of European decent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists..."

It basically insinuates that because you are white, you are automatically privileged and therefore racist.

http://www.thefire.org/pdfs/3d0208922083e5d59664be8371ab5f0f.pdf

It's essentially making white people feel for being born white.

Paladin, it's an old way to define "racism," born out of the Marxist argument that only the class with capital resources can "oppress," because the poor have so few resources, their "oppression" is meaningless.

I find the approach overly simplistic, and counterproductive in the way you point out: because we are a "guilt-based" culture, a lot of whites will respond by feeling guilty about things over which they have no control.

It's too bad, because it obscures the point that systemic racism is built into our society. And it's necessary that whites understand that before we can have productive conversations about attempts at rectification such as affirmative action. Instead, as we see on these threads, we get a lot of complaints that since everything is "equal" now, any program that gives a black person any help is "unfair."

 

[Nova]

I have a question about these "mandatory" meetings. Has anyone found out the penalty for refusing? At the numerous universities I've attended, RAs didn't have enough power to compel anyone to do anything more strenuous than hide a hot plate.

 

[Paladin]

It's too bad, because it obscures the point that systemic racism is built into our society. And it's necessary that whites understand that before we can have productive conversations about attempts at rectification such as affirmative action. Instead, as we see on these threads, we get a lot of complaints that since everything is "equal" now, any program that gives a black person any help is "unfair."

Maybe because in some instances it is "unfair"? How is hiring a less qualified person of a certain race to fill a quota going to really help them or anyone else for that matter?

 

[Paladin]

I have a question about these "mandatory" meetings. Has anyone found out the penalty for refusing? At the numerous universities I've attended, RAs didn't have enough power to compel anyone to do anything more strenuous than hide a hot plate.

This is all I could come up with, but again take it with a grain of salt because it was on FIRE blog, supposedly posted by a student of U of D:

"Essentially, if I do not change my views, I will be labeled by my RA as not embracing diversity, and not accepting of certain groups, and thus my RA will try all the harder to change me. This is not the school's job, or right"

 

[Nova]

Why would a university need to know this information? To what end? If a person wants to discuss their sexual orientation they can join a support group. Colleges have plenty of those, and they're free and open for anyone to join. To automatically build this into the college lifestyle makes no sense to me.

As I pointed out above, heterosexual orientation is already publicly recognized by the culture with large and lavish rituals. Heterosexuals aren't sent to "support groups" to address their orientation, why should others be?

Pal, I am NOT accusing you of homophobia or any other bad intent. (And I think I know you pretty well from your posts.) But your question to me is strongly suggestive of a majority viewpoint (and you need not apologize for that). You seem to assume that anyone who wants to discuss his non-majority orientation needs special "support" -- or at least a special place to do so. Think about the implications of that.

Put another way, NObody thinks being heterosexual is a "private matter." The notion that other orientations are "private" tends to encourage shame about them (even though I know that isn't your intent).

On the contrary, what these questions attempt to accomplish is to encourage dialogue about the many other points on the spectrum of orientation. And to convey to students there's nothing shameful about being different.

 

[Nova]

Maybe because in some instances it is "unfair"? How is hiring a less qualified person of a certain race to fill a quota going to really help them or anyone else for that matter?

It wouldn't, but sometimes "less qualified" simply means having fewer, arbitrary "indicators" of success. The applicant from the inner city, commuter school may not actually be less qualified than the applicant from the Ivy League; the former may have just had fewer opportunities.

I don't mean to turn this into an affirmative action debate. I agree it is a complicated issue. I was just saying we can't even discuss it intelligently without some acknowledgment that everyone doesn't have the same opportunities.

To wit, whether affirmative action is "unfair" is impossible to judge if we refuse to admit that the majority candidate has certain advantages that aren't always brought to light in the application process.

 

[Nova]

This is all I could come up with, but again take it with a grain of salt because it was on FIRE blog, supposedly posted by a student of U of D:

"Essentially, if I do not change my views, I will be labeled by my RA as not embracing diversity, and not accepting of certain groups, and thus my RA will try all the harder to change me. This is not the school's job, or right"

In my experience, RAs do not give grades or academic honors, they don't decide who gets into which program or grad school. Unless the RA has the power to kick out a student for failing "diversity training," I'm not sure the consequences are all that much.

RAs are just slightly older students as a rule.

 

[Details]

Whatever power RA's have or don't, I don't agree with them recieving training to pass on that defines all whites as racist - old Marxist definition or not. Nor with pressuring people to define their sexual orientation. They don't have to have power to be a pain, and the college should not be putting anyone in place to ask those questions.


Any sexual orientation is private. People may assume you are heterosexual, but that's a long step away from you being required to define yourself as heterosexual, homosexual, asexual or bisexual, etc.

 

[SadieMae]

This document was given to all RAs as a training packet. They are to take this information and use it to teach their residents. That is how I am connecting the hall meetings.

Here is an excerpt:

"A RACIST: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e. of European decent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists..."

It basically insinuates that because you are white, you are automatically privileged and therefore racist.

http://www.thefire.org/pdfs/3d0208922083e5d59664be8371ab5f0f.pdf

It's essentially making white people feel for being born white.

:waitasec: Reading that definition again...I totally disagree with the bolded part!!! It's not limited to whites only! Blacks are racists also, even within the black race to each other!! Hispanics and Asians also exhibit racism with their groups and not only to other races. I have a Puerto Rican friend that hates Mexicans, all Mexicans....I can't figure that one out.

I like this definition better:

"A RACIST: A racist is one who may be neither privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a democratic system. The term applies to all IGNORANT people living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of any color can be racists..."

 

[Paladin]

As I pointed out above, heterosexual orientation is already publicly recognized by the culture with large and lavish rituals. Heterosexuals aren't sent to "support groups" to address their orientation, why should others be?

Pal, I am NOT accusing you of homophobia or any other bad intent. (And I think I know you pretty well from your posts.) But your question to me is strongly suggestive of a majority viewpoint (and you need not apologize for that). You seem to assume that anyone who wants to discuss his non-majority orientation needs special "support" -- or at least a special place to do so. Think about the implications of that.

Put another way, NObody thinks being heterosexual is a "private matter." The notion that other orientations are "private" tends to encourage shame about them (even though I know that isn't your intent).

On the contrary, what these questions attempt to accomplish is to encourage dialogue about the many other points on the spectrum of orientation. And to convey to students there's nothing shameful about being different.

I think heterosexuality should be private as well. I don't care to hear about my friend's or co-worker's latest conquests or about the girls he wants to "bang", the same way I wouldn't want to hear about homosexuality. As I see it there's no need to discuss sex at all.

You make it sound like getting married is akin to parading your orientation to the world with that being the intention. It's not, and I certainly hope gays don't see it that way.

I'm not trying to sound rude when I say "support" group, but that's what they are. Non-white races, gays, people with diseases and disorders all have groups that are available to support them. And they aren't "sent" there as if we are casting them off.

I'd like to think I'm not homophobic. I don't think I've made any statements in particular that would indicate it, but if I have please let me know so I can address them so I don't make the same mistake.