Political Correctness At Universities
Spooge
Thunderbolt missile in your cheerios Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 67Members
Thunderbolt missile in your cheerios Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 67Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Can or should anything be done?</div> You might remember a post I created some time ago about high school students and their ability to voice political speech in school. If not, here's what happened in the thread: <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=75852' target='_blank'>Political Free Speech in Public Schools</a>
I'm taking this from a closed topic posted by Uzi in the Off-Topic forum. Uzi cannot post here so I took it upon myself to create a discussion thread. I've also gathered a bit more info for your reading pleasure.
First, here is a link to the video documentary that Uzi posted: <a href='http://academicbias.com/bw101.html' target='_blank'>Brainwashing 101 on American Bias.com</a>
It's about 45 minutes long but I thought it was well worth the time. The filmaker openly takes his cue from Michael Moore (though he leaves out the "Johnny-on-the-spot" gotcha tactics) and even contacted Moore for support.
I spent some time googling various topics and stumbled across a PDF article from a British Libertarian group that reported on the Political Correctness culture at US Universities. I chose to follow up this post with the first section of their article mostly because it's a view from outside the US. There are some striking anecdotes that fall squarely in line with the events reported in the video clip.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND
THE IDEA OF A UNIVERSITY</b>
Those of us who read the British press have heard a great deal about the increasing domination of the American universities by the ideology of ?political correctness?. Although a number of books exposing the nature and scope of this development have been published in the United States, few have yet appeared in British editions. I am grateful to Kevin McFarlane for having lent me a copy of one of these volumes, Inside American Education, by the well-known classical liberal scholar Professor Thomas Sowell, who is senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.
THE AMERICAN CULTURAL REVOLUTION
Professor Sowell paints a shocking picture of the regime currently reigning on most American campuses, ranging from the leading Ivy League universities to obscure local colleges. The following are some examples from the book which will give readers some idea of what is going on the world of ?higher education? in the United States: [W]hen a white woman at the University of Pennsylvania expressed her ?deep regard for the individual and my desire to protect the freedoms of all members of society,? she was chided by an administrator who said that the word ?individual? is ?considered by many to be RACIST?. The reason is that emphasis on the individual could be construed as ?opposition to group entitlements?.1
...
When dozens of minority students have invaded classrooms to shout down the professor, intimidate the students, and prevent the lecture from being given, they have done so with impunity at San Fransisco State University, at Berkeley, and at the City College in New York. On the campus of the State University of New York at Binghampton, a public lecture by a 70-year-old retired professor was invaded and disrupted by dozens of students ? mostly minority ? carrying sticks. One of the black students blew his nose on a tissue, which he then deposited in a cup of coffee from which the professor had been drinking ? to the cheers of the mob, while an administrator sat silently in the audience, grinning.2
...
Mark Mathabane, black South African author of Kaffir Boy, traveled to America to go to college and escape apartheid ? only to discover its philosophy flourishing here: When I was in college, I and a few other black students were labeled Uncle Toms for sitting with whites in the cafeteria, sharing with them black culture, working with them on projects and socializing with them.3
...
[B]lack educator Kenneth B. Clark resigned from Antioch College?s board of directors in protest against the administration?s silence as militant black students ?intimidate, threaten, and in some cases physically assault? other black students who disagreed with them. ... At Stanford, Hispanic students who complained of intimidation by more militant, organized Hispanic students found a similar indifference on the part of the administration. Moreover, a copy of their letter of complaint, complete with signatures of the complaining students, was turned over to the militant Hispanic organization.4 Sowell quotes a student at the University of Virginia as saying: Apparently there is a double standard for racism at the University. When a sign was found on Route 29 containing a racial slur, the entire University was up in arms. However, when a black fraternity distributed a flyer with a picture of a black man holding a sword in one hand and the decapitated head of a white man, entrails and all, aloft in the other, no one seemed concerned.5 Many invited speakers have been prevented from speaking at Harvard by disruption and violence, and the university has either done nothing at all or has given only the most nominal punishment ? when the disrupters were ?politically correct? and the speaker was not. Such conservative figures as Caspar Weinberger, the Reverend Jerry Falwell, Contra leaders, and others have been disrupted and assaulted by radical students. In one episode, the speaker ? Contra leader Aldolfo Calero ? was ready to resume his talk after having been physically assaulted, but was prevented from doing so by Harvard University authorities. One rationalization for this surrender to the opponents of Calero was that there was now ?a solidly conservative audience? remaining in the lecture hall, which would create the impression that the sponsors ?were trying to exclude liberals?. ... Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick has been driven off the stage at Berkeley by disrupters shouting and throwing objects ? and has been similarly disrupted at the University of Wisconsin, the University of Washington, and other institutions. Former Black Panther leader Eldridge Cleaver, once welcomed on campuses across the country during his radical days, has now turned against the left after living in countries with left-wing dictatorships ? and has been prevented from speaking by disrupters at Berkeley, Wisconsin and Minnesota. ... Lesbians at Mount Holyoke College objected to a campus lecture by James Meredith, the first black man to attend the University of Mississippi, because he was promoting the traditional family. As with other intolerant people, disagreement did not imply debate but suppression. For themselves, however, Mount Holyoke?s organized lesbians claimed not only freedom but license, chalking up the sidewalks with slogans like ?lesbians make great lovers? and ?try it ? you?ll like it?.6 Sowell describes the case of Steven Mosher, a post-graduate student at Stanford University, who had completed his coursework, visiting China before writing his doctoral dissertation in anthropology: After his stay in China, Mosher shocked much of the world by revealing that country?s widespread compulsory birth control program, including compulsory abortions, imposed on Chinese women by the Communist government. His book, Broken Earth, became a best-seller and helped shatter the rosy picture of Maoist China being promoted by many Western intellectuals on the left, including academics on American college campuses. ... Chinese government officials wrote to Stanford, denouncing Mosher?s activities in China. Steven Mosher was terminated as a graduate student from Stanford, prevented from earning the Ph.D. which plays such a crucial role in an academic career. As with so many other punishments inflicted on those who have violated political correctness, the basis for Mosher?s expulsion was left vague and inconsistent. Not one stated requirement for the doctorate in anthropology was even claimed to have been violated, nor the facts in his book challenged. Instead, criteria of personal behavior were created ex post as a reason why the department ?could not certify you as an anthropologist,? even if the remaining academic requirements of a doctoral dissertation were met.
These new personal behavior criteria included ?responsibility for the welfare of those he is studying? and a ?professional imperative for sensitivity to others.? Moreover, these nebulous personal behaviour standards were repeatedly and insistently depicted by Stanford University?s President Donald Kennedy as professional criteria in anthropology, rather than university rules about personal conduct ? for the latter have due process protections which Mosher was never accorded.
... Even if every charge and every interpretation in the thousands of words in Kennedy?s official decision were 100 percent correct, there would still not be a single violation of the existing rules for receiving a Ph.D. in anthropology at Stanford.7 Dartmouth College has hired forensic experts to try to trace anonymous, abusive letters to feminists and blacks, but it took no action when one of its professors received death threats because he co-sponsored a speaker (on the sinking on the Titanic) with the Dartmouth Review [a conservative newspaper published off campus, to which the Dartmouth authorities are extremely hostile]. Nor was the Dartmouth administration interested when a black writer on that newspaper was threatened, even though he had faculty witnesses and named the other black students from the Afro-American Society who had threatened him. There was a similar disinterest when members of the same society threatened another black student, even though he is handicapped and in a wheelchair.8
Apart from incidents such as the above, academic study itself has been corrupted, so that many university courses have been converted into propaganda sessions against Western civilisation and its achievements. It is no exaggeration to say that American universities are becoming the scene of a cultural revolution comparable to that which was imposed on China in the 1960s, when Maoist fanatics attempted to systematically root out and destroy the remnants of the world?s oldest surviving civilisation. Although the public flaying alive of ?reactionaries? which was a prominent feature of the events in China, has yet to take place in the United States, we can be confident that once the American legal system has been shorn of its surviving protections of ?individual? freedoms, which are ?considered by many to be RACIST?, then ?group entitlements? will allow the proponents of ?political correctness? to emulate their Chinese forebears in this respect also.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The rest of the PDF file can be found <a href='http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/educn/educn027.pdf' target='_blank'>at their website.</a>
So, where does this put us? My university experience has been very non-traditional in that I take classes part time, at an off-campus facility, and generally they're night classes. Most of my classmates and professors work in an industry position during the day.
I have heard stories from family members and friends who were told directly by their professors that if they continued to write papers or ask/answer questions in class that didn't conform to "the general conduct of the class" that they could either face the public consternation of their classmates or risk receiving lower grades. Voicing their opinions in class or in written graded work could mean not passing a class.
I'm curious if anyone here can defend this? I'm willing to listen to a point of view that supports these political correct codes but I'm really hoping there's more to it than "we shouldn't hurt other peoples feelings".
Also, has anyone here had direct experience either from a professor or fellow students who attempted to limit speech on a college campus?
I'm taking this from a closed topic posted by Uzi in the Off-Topic forum. Uzi cannot post here so I took it upon myself to create a discussion thread. I've also gathered a bit more info for your reading pleasure.
First, here is a link to the video documentary that Uzi posted: <a href='http://academicbias.com/bw101.html' target='_blank'>Brainwashing 101 on American Bias.com</a>
It's about 45 minutes long but I thought it was well worth the time. The filmaker openly takes his cue from Michael Moore (though he leaves out the "Johnny-on-the-spot" gotcha tactics) and even contacted Moore for support.
I spent some time googling various topics and stumbled across a PDF article from a British Libertarian group that reported on the Political Correctness culture at US Universities. I chose to follow up this post with the first section of their article mostly because it's a view from outside the US. There are some striking anecdotes that fall squarely in line with the events reported in the video clip.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND
THE IDEA OF A UNIVERSITY</b>
Those of us who read the British press have heard a great deal about the increasing domination of the American universities by the ideology of ?political correctness?. Although a number of books exposing the nature and scope of this development have been published in the United States, few have yet appeared in British editions. I am grateful to Kevin McFarlane for having lent me a copy of one of these volumes, Inside American Education, by the well-known classical liberal scholar Professor Thomas Sowell, who is senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.
THE AMERICAN CULTURAL REVOLUTION
Professor Sowell paints a shocking picture of the regime currently reigning on most American campuses, ranging from the leading Ivy League universities to obscure local colleges. The following are some examples from the book which will give readers some idea of what is going on the world of ?higher education? in the United States: [W]hen a white woman at the University of Pennsylvania expressed her ?deep regard for the individual and my desire to protect the freedoms of all members of society,? she was chided by an administrator who said that the word ?individual? is ?considered by many to be RACIST?. The reason is that emphasis on the individual could be construed as ?opposition to group entitlements?.1
...
When dozens of minority students have invaded classrooms to shout down the professor, intimidate the students, and prevent the lecture from being given, they have done so with impunity at San Fransisco State University, at Berkeley, and at the City College in New York. On the campus of the State University of New York at Binghampton, a public lecture by a 70-year-old retired professor was invaded and disrupted by dozens of students ? mostly minority ? carrying sticks. One of the black students blew his nose on a tissue, which he then deposited in a cup of coffee from which the professor had been drinking ? to the cheers of the mob, while an administrator sat silently in the audience, grinning.2
...
Mark Mathabane, black South African author of Kaffir Boy, traveled to America to go to college and escape apartheid ? only to discover its philosophy flourishing here: When I was in college, I and a few other black students were labeled Uncle Toms for sitting with whites in the cafeteria, sharing with them black culture, working with them on projects and socializing with them.3
...
[B]lack educator Kenneth B. Clark resigned from Antioch College?s board of directors in protest against the administration?s silence as militant black students ?intimidate, threaten, and in some cases physically assault? other black students who disagreed with them. ... At Stanford, Hispanic students who complained of intimidation by more militant, organized Hispanic students found a similar indifference on the part of the administration. Moreover, a copy of their letter of complaint, complete with signatures of the complaining students, was turned over to the militant Hispanic organization.4 Sowell quotes a student at the University of Virginia as saying: Apparently there is a double standard for racism at the University. When a sign was found on Route 29 containing a racial slur, the entire University was up in arms. However, when a black fraternity distributed a flyer with a picture of a black man holding a sword in one hand and the decapitated head of a white man, entrails and all, aloft in the other, no one seemed concerned.5 Many invited speakers have been prevented from speaking at Harvard by disruption and violence, and the university has either done nothing at all or has given only the most nominal punishment ? when the disrupters were ?politically correct? and the speaker was not. Such conservative figures as Caspar Weinberger, the Reverend Jerry Falwell, Contra leaders, and others have been disrupted and assaulted by radical students. In one episode, the speaker ? Contra leader Aldolfo Calero ? was ready to resume his talk after having been physically assaulted, but was prevented from doing so by Harvard University authorities. One rationalization for this surrender to the opponents of Calero was that there was now ?a solidly conservative audience? remaining in the lecture hall, which would create the impression that the sponsors ?were trying to exclude liberals?. ... Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick has been driven off the stage at Berkeley by disrupters shouting and throwing objects ? and has been similarly disrupted at the University of Wisconsin, the University of Washington, and other institutions. Former Black Panther leader Eldridge Cleaver, once welcomed on campuses across the country during his radical days, has now turned against the left after living in countries with left-wing dictatorships ? and has been prevented from speaking by disrupters at Berkeley, Wisconsin and Minnesota. ... Lesbians at Mount Holyoke College objected to a campus lecture by James Meredith, the first black man to attend the University of Mississippi, because he was promoting the traditional family. As with other intolerant people, disagreement did not imply debate but suppression. For themselves, however, Mount Holyoke?s organized lesbians claimed not only freedom but license, chalking up the sidewalks with slogans like ?lesbians make great lovers? and ?try it ? you?ll like it?.6 Sowell describes the case of Steven Mosher, a post-graduate student at Stanford University, who had completed his coursework, visiting China before writing his doctoral dissertation in anthropology: After his stay in China, Mosher shocked much of the world by revealing that country?s widespread compulsory birth control program, including compulsory abortions, imposed on Chinese women by the Communist government. His book, Broken Earth, became a best-seller and helped shatter the rosy picture of Maoist China being promoted by many Western intellectuals on the left, including academics on American college campuses. ... Chinese government officials wrote to Stanford, denouncing Mosher?s activities in China. Steven Mosher was terminated as a graduate student from Stanford, prevented from earning the Ph.D. which plays such a crucial role in an academic career. As with so many other punishments inflicted on those who have violated political correctness, the basis for Mosher?s expulsion was left vague and inconsistent. Not one stated requirement for the doctorate in anthropology was even claimed to have been violated, nor the facts in his book challenged. Instead, criteria of personal behavior were created ex post as a reason why the department ?could not certify you as an anthropologist,? even if the remaining academic requirements of a doctoral dissertation were met.
These new personal behavior criteria included ?responsibility for the welfare of those he is studying? and a ?professional imperative for sensitivity to others.? Moreover, these nebulous personal behaviour standards were repeatedly and insistently depicted by Stanford University?s President Donald Kennedy as professional criteria in anthropology, rather than university rules about personal conduct ? for the latter have due process protections which Mosher was never accorded.
... Even if every charge and every interpretation in the thousands of words in Kennedy?s official decision were 100 percent correct, there would still not be a single violation of the existing rules for receiving a Ph.D. in anthropology at Stanford.7 Dartmouth College has hired forensic experts to try to trace anonymous, abusive letters to feminists and blacks, but it took no action when one of its professors received death threats because he co-sponsored a speaker (on the sinking on the Titanic) with the Dartmouth Review [a conservative newspaper published off campus, to which the Dartmouth authorities are extremely hostile]. Nor was the Dartmouth administration interested when a black writer on that newspaper was threatened, even though he had faculty witnesses and named the other black students from the Afro-American Society who had threatened him. There was a similar disinterest when members of the same society threatened another black student, even though he is handicapped and in a wheelchair.8
Apart from incidents such as the above, academic study itself has been corrupted, so that many university courses have been converted into propaganda sessions against Western civilisation and its achievements. It is no exaggeration to say that American universities are becoming the scene of a cultural revolution comparable to that which was imposed on China in the 1960s, when Maoist fanatics attempted to systematically root out and destroy the remnants of the world?s oldest surviving civilisation. Although the public flaying alive of ?reactionaries? which was a prominent feature of the events in China, has yet to take place in the United States, we can be confident that once the American legal system has been shorn of its surviving protections of ?individual? freedoms, which are ?considered by many to be RACIST?, then ?group entitlements? will allow the proponents of ?political correctness? to emulate their Chinese forebears in this respect also.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The rest of the PDF file can be found <a href='http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/educn/educn027.pdf' target='_blank'>at their website.</a>
So, where does this put us? My university experience has been very non-traditional in that I take classes part time, at an off-campus facility, and generally they're night classes. Most of my classmates and professors work in an industry position during the day.
I have heard stories from family members and friends who were told directly by their professors that if they continued to write papers or ask/answer questions in class that didn't conform to "the general conduct of the class" that they could either face the public consternation of their classmates or risk receiving lower grades. Voicing their opinions in class or in written graded work could mean not passing a class.
I'm curious if anyone here can defend this? I'm willing to listen to a point of view that supports these political correct codes but I'm really hoping there's more to it than "we shouldn't hurt other peoples feelings".
Also, has anyone here had direct experience either from a professor or fellow students who attempted to limit speech on a college campus?
Comments
It cracked me up that the left wing liberal uni staff were using racist insults to slam that Sihk student - I guess that shows that people from both sides of politics use racism and xenophobia to denigrate anyone that disagrees with them....
At my uni, a veritable cesspool of anti-Americanism, anti-Capitalism and anti-Western society, the actually university employee's refuse to get involved in this kind of political stuff. Unfortunately, the UQ Student Union is firmly in the hands of the reds, and any conservative has a snowballs chance in hell of getting themselves into any position of leadership within that. Their "Semper Floreat" magazine is merely an extention of the "Green Left Weekly, A Socialist Alternative sponsored Newspaper".
It concerns me that in order for anyone to get a higher education, they are forced to wade through this sort of self loathing and subversive propaganda.
EDIT
There was something about an American narrator complaining about being treated unfairly that had a part of me itching to yell GARBAGE!!!!!! even though it was true. Too much watching Micheal Moore <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Im looking forward for the final release because I would defenitely pay to see this as opposed to Fahrenheit 9/11.
This is what political correctness is - voicing your opinion civilly and listening to other peoples' opinions, while upholding the idea that all people are equal.
I watched the movie and I don't see what it has to do with political correctness. It seems to be liberal slanting, and LACK of political correctness, that he has a problem with. If the school that persecuted the guy for putting up the flyer HAD been properly PC, they would have accepted his ideas with an open mind.
Prejudice and PC are OPPOSITES. I guess what he's saying is that people use PC as a weapon against certain groups - that THEY decide when it's ok to be prejudiced and when it isn't... and whenever this happens, it's wrong, but I don't think it's a widespread phenomenon. I mean, if everyone was liberal and oppressing the conservatives, how would a republican ever get elected in the first place?
Sad, sad days for America. "Don't think different, think alike."
Edit:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is what political correctness is - voicing your opinion civilly and listening to other peoples' opinions, while upholding the idea that all people are equal.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I just you should know that "politically correct" has absolutely nothing to do with voicing your opinion in a civil manner. Politically Correct is something that is too soft and meaningless to make a real statement. I suppose the best way to show PC is to show what is not PC.
For example. I am white, but I have noticed that many blacks are poor. I also know some rich blacks. My opinion is that the poorer blacks should overcome their negative hip hop culture and learn to be successful. That opinion is <i>not</i> PC, because I have pointed that a non-white culture is having a negative impact on a non-white group of people. Even though I may have a point, me expressing this opinion could very well offend a black person, because they may see it as an insult.
In all truth though, PC is something that enables people to cover their eyes better from the harsh truth of the world in which we live. A black person might see my opinion as offensive, but it does not take away any truth that may or may not be lying in my statement.
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
In all truth though, PC is something that enables people to cover their eyes better from the harsh truth of the world in which we live. A black person might see my opinion as offensive, but it does not take away any truth that may or may not be lying in my statement. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You couldn't be more right.
The PC movement is something that has slipped steadily into the mainstream and slowly assimilated parts of our lives without us even realizing it. Things like Affirmative Action and ethnic diversity reports are helping to ruin our society.
Ever look at a text book or a pamphlet or an advertisement that features lots of people lately? Those people are hardly chosen at random, people are picked from as many ethnic backgrounds as possible so as not to offend anyone who might be viewing that material.
I don't know about you guys, but allot of the text books at my school would have a person in a wheel chair in every picture that involved sports, one white, one Asian, one black, and one Hispanic. I once checked my Spanish and English text books for a picture that featured two people of the same race together...not one in ether book.
These people have entrenched themselves in positions of power within our educational system on all levels, and are subtly and not so subtly enforcing their PC views on kids of all ages.
People are different, they have different backgrounds and cultures, a handicapped person will most likely not be skiing (yes my Spanish book once had this picture, he just sat at the top of the hill in his chair.) the odds of having an Asian, a black, a white, a Hispanic, and a handicapped person all together as friends are incredibly low, yet if you were to look through some books you would think it's common place. This mentality of “must not offend” is nice in theory but like socialism it just doesn’t translate into real life.
I could go on forever and cite specific examples and demonstrate how people tend to "hang out" with people of the same race as them, not because their racists but because those people have more in common. I read an interesting article about this a while ago I'll try and dig it up.
wrong
Thats not PC
that is being closed minded and a fanatic.
Personaly, I view my self as liberal, that is ussing the REAL defenition:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most people are perfectly willing to agree that there are problems in our culture that cause a large portion of miorities to end up below the poverty line.
Stating that this is all bassed off of hip hop is rather silly (as rich white kids also folow the hip hop culture, and so do many uper/middleclass minorities). If you want something to point at you can start with Gang culture and work out from there. But that is a different subject.
PC means different things.
There is normal PC:
Don't use the N Word, don't call people derogitory terms for race/religion/creed/sexual orientation.
there is PC that is a step farther, but not realy all that bad:
Police Person, Fire Person, etc.
Then there is stupid PC (aka fanatics):
Womyn and things of that ilk.
But stating opinions/facts in a nonderogitory way is perfectly PC.
So forinstance:
I believe that part of the cause for why a large number of minoreties are below the pverty line is b/c of the negative influences of the Hip Hop culture.
would be perfectly PC, as there are things that could be pointed out to prove the statement, and the fact that a large number of minoreties are poor is common knowledge.
I went to one of the most liberal schools in the country, Oberlin. Most of the teachers were VERY good about suporting discusion, especialy when students had disenting viewpoints.
Then again, some of the profs sucked and wouldn't listen to any disenting view points, but this is true anywhere.
I had a very conservative social studies teacher, he rarely let people discuss things with him in class, b/c we were all liberals.
It is not a problem with schools in gerenal, it is a problem with a few select profs.
Liberals are some of the most closeminded people I've ever met, and I've met quite a few. You may be one of the lucky ones who is a real idealist; however the American liberal theology has evolved into a front for progressive Socialism that is far more ruthless than any Jesus fanatic you will ever meet.
In all truth though, PC is something that enables people to cover their eyes better from the harsh truth of the world in which we live. A black person might see my opinion as offensive, but it does not take away any truth that may or may not be lying in my statement.
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am not even black... and I am offended by this. You say that your over whelming generilisation in the truth - but obviously you have very little experiance with this matter. While your point is true to a certain extent,very subconciously, you say that "blacks should overcome their negative hip hop culture and learn to be successful". This could not be more wrong. Not all blacks, in fact quite a few don't have a 'negative' "hip hop culture" - by saying this, you reveal your lack of experiance, which makes your view biased and overarching.
Basically, saying that hip hop culture is negative is plain ignorant. Sure, the so-called gangsta hip hop, that revolves around drug dealing, shooting other gangstas etc. can be viewed as negative, but the world of hip hop is HUGE and there's a HUGE amount of diversity there. Many rappers simply use their music to express their views on politics, life, etc., and many of them do so with quite intelligent play on words and rhythm. Gangsta rappers just are the noisiest. Don't make your impression of the culture basing just on them.
Basically, saying that hip hop culture is negative is plain ignorant. Sure, the so-called gangsta hip hop, that revolves around drug dealing, shooting other gangstas etc. can be viewed as negative, but the world of hip hop is HUGE and there's a HUGE amount of diversity there. Many rappers simply use their music to express their views on politics, life, etc., and many of them do so with quite intelligent play on words and rhythm. Gangsta rappers just are the noisiest. Don't make your impression of the culture basing just on them. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Argue semantics if you want - he was obviously referring to gangsta hip hop. And he was referring to that "culture/mentality", not necessarily that musical genre. Its negative, its angry, it promotes crime, and elevates petty thugs to superstar status. People are influenced by that kind of thing.
Negative thinking gets very few people anywhere.
ok, illuminex, your just making broad generalizations about an entire group (people with some sorta leftish swing) based off of the people you have met.
And you are how old? I am guessing that you are not much more then 21 (if that), by your logic I get to say that the majority of liberals are actualy very good people, like to have open discussions on different topics, and are perfectly ok with you having different ideas, so long as you don'ot try to impose them on other people.
I also get to say that all conservatives are fanatics who think that any one who disagrees with anytihng they think (abortion, god, creation, sexuality, etc etc etc) are going to burn in hell and are wrong, NO SHUT UP YOU CAN'T SPEAK BECAUSE YOUR WRONG!!!!
Just b/c the majority of people I have met (or seen via media and other things) seem to lean in one direction, dosn't say that it is true for every one.
I know there are fanatical Leftists (and I hate them) I know there are liberal Right wingers (and I like them). Infact, the majority of people are more tworeds the center
thus why very few prezidential canidates take very strong stances on major issues. Even in our current election, "one of the most polerized ever", the canidates are still both staying very close to the politcal fence, so they can swing the moderates (as they know all the fanatics are already voting straight party tickets).
As fro the hip hop thing, its not non-PC, its just wrong. Yes Gangsta Rap is sorta a problem, but it is nowhere near the main problem, it is simply a symptome (you don't treat symptomes, you treat the disease). Thats why people get offended by it. And yes there are stupid people out there who get angry if you say that the majority of violent crimes are commited by minorities (they are), but then agian those people simply don't know facts, AND if you say that the crimes are commited by minorities and don't explain anything else, you are missinformed (the majority of violent crimes are commited by poor people, the majority of poor people are minorities)
Oh, and I am not an Idielist, I am a realist (thats why I see that there realy is nothing different between our skin colours, our sexual preferances, etc etc, they realy don't matter, but that is for another thread.)
The rush to condemn any sort of generalisations is one of the primary weapons of Political Correctness. It forces people to abandon looking at the big picture, and instead concentrate on small specific cases. It attacks simplicity in favour of overwhelming complexity, nothing is ever able to be dealt with on a large scale.
I can stand up and say "the problem with the Church today is that most Christians are uptight and egomaniacs with an inflated selfesteem and a 'otherworldly attitude" that leaves them almost unable to interact in any meaningful way with anyone outside of the church". Its probably true for over half. And those half stand up and invoke PC - you cant say that, thats a generalisation, I know John Smith isnt like that, you've only ever seen two churchs how can you know its an epidemic, you're ignoring the complex circumstances and how people recieve and understand Christians trying to reach out etc etc etc
Its a smokescreen, a method of preserving the status quo, of tearing down any reformer, of dismissing people who say something you disagree with.
If Illuminex were to make his "broad generalizations about an entire group" in a classroom or out in the commons, should he receive a lower/failing grade or be suspended/expelled from school?
If Illuminex were to make his "broad generalizations about an entire group" in a classroom or out in the commons, should he receive a lower/failing grade or be suspended/expelled from school? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Focusssing.....Focusssing!!!!
NO!
Generalizations are good - they are needed for the human brain to comprehend large groups.
Yes, there are always exceptions to the rules, people who don't quite fit the picture - but that doesn't mean that there isn't a picture there.
For instance, Illuminex made a general statement about Hip Hop music and its negative influence on poor black culture. That is a valid statment - there is truth in it. However, to attack that statement and say "not all poor black people listen to hip hop," or "not all hip hop is bad" is completely missing the point! It is an attempt to tear down the argument because it is not valid for 100% of all cases - though it may be "generally true" and valid for 70% of all cases.
Generalizations should be qualified though - admit that there are exceptions and maybe "try" to give a percentage of exceptions. Make a concerted attempt to find error in your "perception" of truth in your generalization, and what is really "true". In the above case, the generalization may only be true for 40% of all cases, and perceived at 70%.
So no, he should not receive a lower/failing grade - assuming he isn't basing his whole argument on a generalization.
That statement is not Politically Correct, because it is a Conservative statement. Pretty much ever conservative believes and follows that mentality. However, most Conservatives are considered racist because they desire to treat everyone equal. It doesn't make sense, but neither does a "feel good" mentality. The liberal movement is largely "feel good" instead of "realist." If you really look at the American Liberal movement, I think you might be surprised. That is, if you are a real realist.
In any case, the reality is that the Hip Hop culture is a negative existence which promotes gang violence, disrespect of women, drug use, poor spending habits, and no hope for young blacks. I own real gangster rap CD's, not mainstream, I'm talking Mobb Deep, etc. I do believe that 3/4 of the 16 or so tracks on the album I own make blatant and repeated statements such as "kill ya'll niggaz" "bust a cap in dat nigga," etc etc.
Your main problem with my statement is the fact that I'm not a part of that culture, and therefore making and expressing an opinion on it is "wrong." That is exactly what we are talking about!
And back on point with the main topic, my example is now not the extreme. The universities in the film did not intervene when groups of militant minority students persecuted members of the same minority group for not sharing and/or speaking out against the militant's viewpoint. That is the result of a far too PC attitude at college campuses today.
Saying that being poor is their own fault would be wrong, saying that balcks are poor b/c ***** (replace that with any reason that makes it their fault) is racist..
I am a strong suporter of helping poor citizens (mostly I wana do it via schools, and giving them more of a boost).
however Pepe_Muffassa actualy nailed it.
Generalizations ARE accepted
YES I KNOW THERE ARE FANATICAL LIBERALS WHO WILL JUMP DOWN YOUR THROAT FOR SAYING ANY OF THEM.
They are not in the majority. Not even on college campuses (I have spent a large portion of my life in Acadamia b/c both my parents are profs)
However, As Pepe_Muffassa said, generalizations need to be qualified.
If you were to right an entire paper on why Hip Hop is the cause of poor blacks problems, you probably would get a bad grade, as it is bassed off of a logical falicy. If you wrote a paper on how hip hop culture is either a vent for the problems of poor blacks or how it is contributing to the problem, then yo would probably get a better grade (assuming it was a well writen paper <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
As for a few other things ontopic:
The quoted document is horriby put together.
There are no dates, further explenations, or actual facts. The person repeatedly gives one sided descriptions of events, and not even giving full descriptions.
Sometihng like that would get you a HORRIBLE grade in college. Profs look for details, they want to know when where, why AND Disenting arguments.
"the general conduct of the class"
Tell me what they were saying and I will respond.
Honestly I have seen Zero to No facts given in this thread, and if you write a paper like that, expect to get a failing grade.
I admit, I have not watched the movie (as I don't have 40 mins to spare, and I will problably end up wanting to Rip And Tear the creators.
ah screw it, lets see what I can see
ok, 3 bad events.
2 of said events ended with the correct actions happening (true, for the wrong reason, but but the actions did take place).
the 3rd, well I am honestly surprised that nothing has happened. At most colleges yuo could simply print out that email (or foward it) to the judical comity and said student would be in a alot of trouble.
I went to Oberlin College, one of the most liberal and PC places on earth, and yes things like this do happen from time to time. However , it is the students who do these things, and when some one steps over the line? they get hit with charges from the college.
But normaly it is the students who fight back against this stuff (and win). I remember in my freshman year, some one wrote an editorial about how every male was a rapist (was writen by a male). So my roommate steped up and wrote an editorial in response, this went back and forth a few times. But it worked.
Some one in the socialst club started posting signs on 9/12 ussing 9/11 for their cause.
People retaliated with signs telling them to have some respect before they start ussing the dead for their campaign.
Oh well. I basicaly don't see anything in this thread that showes an actual problem (exept for some of the scenarios in the video, yet even there it showes things from 3 colleges, and these are isolated incedents.)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->illuminex, what matters is how I say it, and some of my other belifes.
Saying that being poor is their own fault would be wrong, saying that balcks are poor b/c ***** (replace that with any reason that makes it their fault) is racist..<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hardly, since my godfather is a black multi-millionaire who worked for his money without using athletics or MCing for his money. No where did I say all blacks are poor, I just said that most blacks that are poor are responsible for their own status in society. I'm a huge personal responsibility person. People need to face up to what is theirs and theirs alone, conquer their faults, fears, and weaknesses, and then move on with life a better person.
There's a real interesting concept that exists in the world. It is called "being a victim." Sometimes horrible, terrible, awful things happen to people or communities. They're many times caused by other people. The people on the receiving end are called victims.
Now, the victims have a choice to make. They can choose to let those terrible things haunt them and control them for the rest of their lives. Or they can forgive and let it go. Of course, if this force continues to attack, it is their obligation to defend themselves. Do not get off course with this.
Many times victims that do not let it go and choose to forgive, stuff these feelings they have, refusing to deal with them. They become deeply angry and embittered. Sometimes a whole community does this. Imagine, a community that consistently produces angry and embittered people. These people don't ever realize that they are being controlled by those past events. <i>They are slaves to their own unforgiveness</i>.
None of what I have just stated is racist. It is simple truth. It all comes down to a choice that a person makes. Many blacks have made a choice to remain a victim, some without ever really thinking about it. Some, however, decided that they had better things to do, that they would go out and make things happen.
I was specifically looking for when the race card was going to come up, so I could stomp all over it in the name of real equality.
Also, this is a forum discussion, not a paper. Life experiences are not applicable in a college paper situation, but on a forum, the same rules are not in place.
Please, don't assume the thesis of my theoretical paper would be "Hip Hop: Why Blacks Are Poor." If you really read my thread, you'd know that I never said anything of the sort. It would probably be : "Hip Hop: Dragging Poor Blacks Farther Into Poverty."
That's it, I'm starting a discussion on this topic in 5...
Is it acceptable for a university administration to give someone a poor or failing grade and/or suspend or expel a student from school because they voiced an opinion?
As far as I'm concerned, the actual opinion is insignificant. Note: a direct threat against an individual or group is not an opinion.
Is it acceptable for a university administration to give someone a poor or failing grade and/or suspend or expel a student from school because they voiced an opinion?
As far as I'm concerned, the actual opinion is insignificant. Note: a direct threat against an individual or group is not an opinion.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like how that guy at the end is given a death threat and nothing is done about it
Now that's justice
And if people honestly think that there are "conservative" instances of this... they are living in another reality. Everyone knows universities are liberal to the max, there is just no denying it. Young people in general are liberal, and so are college professors. In todays' day and age, where things are more liberal than they have ever been, things on universities approach an almost stalinish nightmare...
No, it isn't right.
The first issue addressed in the movie was compleatly due to preasure from a goup of stupid students who didn't realize that this was the title of a book writen by a black man. The college didn't back down b/c very few large organizations feel they can back down with out looking bad (despite the fact that pressing on makes them look worse).
Why it ever went that far I am not sure, I am willing to place it at some sorta influence that this group was able to exert over the school (no normal school officals would actualy prosecute for hanging up that flyer, not after seeing what it actualy was).
I just woke up and can't remember what the second incident was (to tired, not redownloading)
the 3rd incedent is inexcusable, but at the same time....
I just find it hard to believe. They didn't manage to get a single comment from a person in admin, in ANY other school simply sending that email to the justice board would have ended up with serious action taken against the offender (assuming it came from an email addy that could be traced back to some one).
Again, I went to the most liberal college there is (Oberlin) and never would anytihng like this go unpunished, if for no other reason then a quick fowarding of the email to JBoard would have gotten a hearing set up imediatly (I know, I have been involved in JBoard casses).
So no, it isn't acceptable, but neither is it nearly as wide spread as the film or the .pdf try and make it out to be.
oh, and @Forlorn
There are PLEANTY of ultra concervative colleges/unis out there. Most of them are smaller, but there are pleanty out there.
Smaller little campuses? What does that make out about, 5% (maybe) of the entire student population in the US?
These cases are liberal dominated. There's no denying it and you can find tons of articles on it, even back in the 90's I can remember reading stuff about this.
And yes, bad stuff happens, but at most colleges it is taken care of properly.
And yes, bad stuff happens, but at most colleges it is taken care of properly. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with both - but it still worries me that all universities (save an extremely select handful), have this overarching left wing slant. Hell lets not call it a slant - the slope is practically vertical to the ground. Why should it be that if you want a conservative university that DOESNT spend all day bashing America, then you have to search out some incredibly small campus 9 states away?
Practically all the minds of tomorrow are going to have to wade through these hippy propaganda stations - I do not want a second generation of flower children.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. I do not think that such action is acceptable.
I've gotten into plenty of disagreements with my Women's Studies professor over various essays. Most recently, we were discussing an essay by a group of Socialist feminists. When the professor asked what Socialism was, I was the only person who knew and the resulting discussion ended up with me pretty much trouncing her in a debate. However, I supported my arguments with examples and evidence. She didn't get upset or tell me that I was wrong or do anything of the sort. Nor has it affected my grade. I think that she actually likes me more for it, since I can usually get a good discussion going instead of just being a yes-man.
When people make generalizations, they need to be based on something other than a rediculous example that has little resemblance to reality. There is such a thing as pattern recognition and people shouldn't be begrudged for such an ability.
For instance, i've been racially and ethnically insulted by a minority before. I've been called cracka, wop (yes, I am an Italian-American), honky, and probably a few others that I can't quite call to mind. To me, a black kid saying that to me, is on the same level as me calling him the dreaded 'N' word. Yet, nothing was done to the kid who insulted me, even when it was said infront of teachers in the classroom. And if I were to jump up and throw the N word at him, i'd be considered something close to Satan by eveyone around me. While he gets to play the poor victim, and gain even more sympathy than the minorities do today.
Though I may not take great offense to being called any of the above, it's still effed up. I say to hell with political correctness, take a stand. I can say that, by the way, because political correctness is just a backalley for people who are too scared to speak the truth to escape through.
Now, be aware, I am not advocating racism, or anything else of the like through saying that. Just equality.
One thing occured to me, the fraternity that got suspended from offical recognition was phi kappa sigma.... When I came here, I visited that frat and it turned out that the fraternity wasn't recognized here either, and I wondered why... after all, Kappa Sigma had been around since 1924.
0 Upon watching this video again with my friend, I realize the fraternity that got suspended at tennesee high was the one that wasn't recognized here. It then struck me that not only did the frat Kappa Sigma in tennesee get suspended, but it probably got suspended nation wide.
Amazing, this is far more reaching then I could have imagined. Remember, 87% of our universities today have speech-codes... Unreal. It's like I'm living in a nightmare.
Thansal:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Oh, and I am not an Idielist, I am a realist (thats why I see that there realy is nothing different between our skin colours, our sexual preferances, etc etc, they realy don't matter, but that is for another thread.)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sorry but if you were a realist then there's no way you could be liberal. I'm conservative, and the reason is because I am a realist. Conservatism means taking what you have, slow gradual reform. If you are liberal, then you aren't a realist, because a person who believes in realistic solutions would never accept what liberals have to say.