This thread was inspired by a disruption charge at a top technical California state university.
Based on the facts as reported in the cite, this was an utter injustice to Hinkle and a violation of his Freedom of Speech. I think the University demonstrated amoral spinelessness. The University has now been held up to ridicule via the cited articles from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. If Hinkle sues them, they will most likely lose.
But, I think this incident also had a negative impact on the students who brought the charge. I think hypersensitivity does more harm than good in seeking minority advancement.
In the short run, this complaint was a success for the students who brought the charge. They got Hinkle punished. They established some power. Their conduct was reinforced. In the outside world, charges based on flimsy pretexts sometimes have bigger payoffs, such as money damages or job preferences.
However, I believe this approach is a diversion. Every student at Cal Poly can have a very successful careers by just mastering the technical material. Being able to achieve success by complaining about minutae doesn’t encourage the hard work necessary to master the academics.
The hypersensitivity approach to advancement gives away one’s power. Someone who wins by being affronted is always dependent on some outside power to offer him recompense. OTOH a student who seeks to become a good engineer holds the keys to success in his/her own hands.
The integration of baseball happened much later than it should have, but it was a great success once it began. Jackie Robinson was anything but hypersensitive. In fact, he put up with horrendous racist taunts. Many today would find those taunts intolerable, but the results show that his thick-skinned approach led to victory over the racists.
Well I’m going to write this down. I agree with you december, but only insofar as to the details cited in the linked piece, specifically the treatment of Hinkle. The rest are suppositions along with a dash of "why won’t they stop complaining, at least we aint lynching 'em no more seasoning.
It’s clear that the people in this case were hypersensitive.
But the rest of your argument does not make sense. You’ve keyed in on Jackie Robinson but ignored your best friend Martin Luther King, Jr. Where do you think he falls on the hypersenstive-indifferent spectrum?
And do you think that perhaps the real world is a little bit different than baseball and celebrity?
Do you think wanting to be treated like everyone else is a little bit different than enduring hell simply to survive?
Do you think dignity is a luxury that black people should put on lay-a-way until they reach financial parity? Does this also apply to wealthy black people?
How much energy was wasted by these bible-study students? How does this energy compare to the amount usually wasted by college students?
How was the black community damaged by this particular case?
How do you determine which injustices warrant attention? Do editorials by Maureen Dowd count?
Thanks for your partial agreement. My responses to monstro will address your second point.
Dr. King wasn’t hypersensistive. He was fighting for rights that are basic and truly significant.
Some of the heros in minority advancement have been many millions of ordinary people like you and me. I spent my career in a field that had been restrictive of Jews. I worked hard, didn’t make a fuss, and left with a good reputation. To a tiny extent my career made it more acceptible for other Jews to be hired. My good work made employers a tiny bit more eager to hire Jews. You have chosen a career where you are helping to pave the way for other blacks and other women.
This is a poignant question. For much of my career I was the only Jewish person around. Of course, I wanted to be treated like everyone else, and to a great extent I was. I seldom mentioned religion nor did my coworkers. However, there was always some degree of difference and separation.
My point is pragmatic. You said you wanted to be treated like everyone else. It’s natural to want to strike back when one is insulted, but too much fuss over truly minor indignities may not be the best way to get treatred like everyone else. Going back to the original cite, the university community apparently treats black students with kid gloves, in some ways. That’s better than being treated with contempt, but it’s not being treated like eveyone else.
Sometimes there’s a conflict between maintaining dignity and fighting indignity. Sometimes there isn’t a dignified way to deal with a situation. This is not a new debate. Many years ago I read an anecdote about George Washington Carver. He was standing in a hotel and someone gave him a bag to carry, assuming he was a porter. He took the bag and accepted a tip. That would be unthinkable behavior today, and I don’t recommend returning to it. But, Carver claimed he had no dignified way to deal with the situation. To point out that he was famous scientist rather than a redcap would have created embarassment, which would not have been dignified behavior.
I read somewhere that when Miami wouldn’t let Jews in, the Jews bought Miami Beach. Wealthy minorities can create their own dignity. They don’t have to beg someone else to give it to them.
What’s striking is the attitude that seems to have prevailed among everyone involved. The black students told this white student not to post a flyer (although they had no right to do so) and he didn’t post it. Then one of them actually called the university police and charged Hinkle with a violation. And, they were proved right! Within the university’s structure they could make a ridiculous charge and have it upheld. Unfortunately, in the real world, that approach will mostly fail. It will hurt the reputation of other blacks.
Obviously there are basic rights that are vital, such as the right to vote or own property. It wasn’t very long ago that blacks and women suffered from legal restrictions. Then there’s the outright racist or sexist comments. Nobody should be expected to put up with them.
However, there’s an area of perceived slights. There is a school of thought that a perceived slight is a slight. If something offended you, that automatically proves that it was offensive. I don’t think it’s helpful to be overly focused on perceived slights. Others disagree with me.
Whether her column about Justice Thomas was racist, it certainly was unfair, mean and vicious. Of course, she was attacking him because he’s a conservative. A few days later she wrote a column stating that Justice Scalia opposes racially mixed marriages, although there is no evidence at all to support the charge.
These two Justices could have complained. They could have sued for libel. But, they maintained a dignified silence. Although they’ve been unfairly vilified again and again, I’m sure it still hurts. How would you feel if America’s leading newspaper called you an Uncle Tom or a racist?
The bottom line is that there’s nothing useful that Scalia and Thomas can do about people like Dowd – at least not in the short run. Complaining won’t really help them. It would focus even more attention on the libelous statement. They have evidently concluded that in the long run, dignified silence will work better.
december, this isn’t a debate. No one is going to disagree with you about the students being hypersensitive. And no one is going to disagree with you that being hypersensitive makes one look bad.
It seems like you only want to lecture to the choir. Fine. But don’t expect a very interested audience.
** SimonX : “Based on the info provided, Cal-Poly executed a very ill-conceived action by censuring Mr. Hinkle.”**
What? Based on the info provided? Do you, Simonx, know something that we don’t know? Has that crafty right-winger December manufactured some of the facts? Probably not. Elsewise some of those lurking liberals would have by now rose up fom their pits screaming bloody murder.
You didn’t expect them to write a nice post saying how much they agreed with Mr. December, did you?
I basically agree with you. The flier should have stayed up. The school policy should be reviewed.
I do not agree that the students should have remained silent. They also have a right to be heard. What you claim was “oversensitive” may have been a matter of insensitivity on the part of the young man. I don’t know.
And sometimes speaking out can be the only dignified reaction.
I’ve snipped your post considerably to focus on what I believe to be the gist of our disagreement. In the above quotes, in each case you are unfairly putting the onus of what’s an acceptable/unacceptable slight on the entire black community rather than on the individuals where it rightfully belongs. True in your earlier cite, there was a massive overreaction. However expecting the black community to rise up and slap down instances such as these would make it harder not easier for legitimate complaints to be heard.
The civil rights movement to me was not just about achieving full protection of rights for black people, but also instrumental in ensuring the rights of the individual. To expect individual black people to behave in a way that edifies all blacks is engaging in a form of transference from the individual to the group. Doesn’t that seem a little racist to you?
The university attorrney states that FIRE has a number of facts wrong but the only specific allegation that he rebuts is that of Hinkle’s access to Hinkle’s attorney - available for counsel outside of the hearing at any time just not allowed to be an advocate (or present) within the hearing itself.
All the infomation I could find in ten minutes boiled down to:
Hinkle’s side - You guys are trampling on my rights because I am a Republican
University’s side - No and No
I was unable to discern the race/gender/ethnicity of the complainers so whether this is a case of minority hypersensitivity (as opposed to liberal or PC or whatever) is unknown.
And I suffer from “perceived slights” all the time and rarely say a word. Not because I don’t want to look bad in front of Whitey (because Whitey will think about me whatever Whitey wants), but because I refuse to let others bring me down.
I find it amazing that you’re holding up Jackie Robinson, a figure from the dark ages as far as race relations go. What about Tiger Woods? The Williams’ sisters? They are contemporary figures who–despite the fact that it’s the year 2003–are bombarded by insults and slurs simply because they’re breaking a color barrier. Just like Robinson, their suffering is done in silence. Things haven’t changed all that much.
Of course, being a big-time celebrity is much different than being a regular person who doesn’t have a $12 million incentive to keep being a “good negro”.
My question: if black people promise to stop being hypersensitive, can the bigots promise to stop being hyperignorant? Hypersensitivity is only the by-product of being sick and tired. It’s not going away as long as overt racism and prejudice continue to exist.
This is not quite what I’m intending to say. I’m not trying to put an onus anywhere. I’m not trying to be fair or unfair. I’t trying to address how things work, whether we like them or not.
That’s an interesting point. I agree that this is a key difference of opinion. Take the example of Jesse Jackson, who I think promotes hypersensitivity. In one way, he is helpful to other blacks. He wields power. His ability to rouse the black community to action sends a message that blacks can’t be pushed around.
OTOH he’s despised by many non-blacks, who consider him a liar and a trouble maker. His actions reflect on all blacks. I think he does more harm than good. YMMV.
It’s not a question of what I expect. It’s a question of reality. People are judged on a group basis to a certain degree although I think they should be jedged as individuals. Group judgments do seem racist, but they’re a part of reality.
You have my utmost respect.
I disagree with your last sentence. I was alive in 1948. I have read a biography of Jackie Robinson. The amount of change since then is absolutely stupendous. I respect Tiger Woods and the Williams sisters, but their experience hasn’t been remotely like the early black baseball players.
They didn’t even break the color barrier in their sports, for goodness sake. There have been black tennis players and golfers for decades, although not many. Althea Gibson won the French Open singles and doubles in 1956. In 1959, Charlie Sifford became the first black to receive a Tour card after the PGA finally rescinded its “Caucasian only” clause.
The facts seem to be the opposite of this POV. Things aren’t perfect in America today, but blacks are a zillion times better off than they were 50 or 100 years ago. Yet the hypersensitivity is far greater now. How do we explain that?
It’s interesting though coincidental that you should bring up this topic, december, very shortly after the rather extended discussion, in the Pit, about gay rights and how best to advance them, in the thread started by Airman Doors, USAF.
In direct response to your OP, an important part of First Amendment rights guarantees that governmental entities, including public university administrations, should never engage in content-based “management” of people’s expressions of views. This probably needs tempering by reasonable apprehension on the part of such authorities that a given public expression of a controversial view, in the specific circumstances that they are confronted with, might reasonably be expected to lead to significant public disruption. In such a case, they should find a way to preserve the right of the person holding such views to express it in a way that would not lead to such disruption.
The broader question you raise, though, is something that has exercised me lately. And it would be my contention that there is a place for both the outspoken call-a-spade-a-spade (kindly forgive the double entendre that involves a slur on blacks) school of advocacy and the quiet-dignity school. You and I (amazing to find us on common ground) tend to adhere to and celebrate the latter – but the former is sometimes necessary in making the necessary impact on public consciousness to enable the work of the latter to proceed. There’s a place for both Dr. King and H. Rap Brown, for Chaim Weismann and Meir Kahane, for HRC and ACT-UP, for William F. Buckley and Ann Coulter (much though it grieves me to say the last – at your convenience, december, I’d love to see your comments on her!), for Al Sharpton and Coretta Scott King.
No, but people continue to treat them like they are. And you have no idea what kind of treatment Tiger or the Sisters face behind closed doors. Neither do I, but I know their fame has come with a heavy dose of reality. The fact that we don’t know about their pain is my point: these people aren’t whiners. Just like Jackie Robinson before them, they know “how to play the game”. As do the black Dopers on this board.
JJ is despised by many blacks too. But this doesn’t matter to you.
I can’t wait for that day when a black person in the limelight reflects just on himself rather than an entire group of people. That goes for the Jackie Robinsons and that goes for the Jesse Jacksons.
(The irony is that you and people like you, december, look at the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons and condemn them for making black people look bad. But we have plenty of black people in the limelight that make black people look good. Your pal Thomas Sowell, for instance. Or Clarence Thomas (shudder). Or Stanley Crouch (double shudder). Unfortunately, the racists tend to regard the “good” negroes as exceptions while the “bad” negroes are typical. They ignore everyone else in the middle. And the keeping-it-real negroes ignore the racists, go figure.)
I request a cite showing that hypersensitivity–and not the awareness of hypersensitivity–has increased. And while you’re producing that, how about providing evidence that hypersensitivity isn’t effective sometimes. I mean, MLK was whining about a damn bus. It wasn’t like the coloreds weren’t allowed on the bus. If they had just sat there in the back like good negroes, all the negroes of today would be millioniares. It’s easy to say this when I don’t have to produce any facts.
December you can’t have it both ways fisrt you say:
and then:
Emphasis mine. I submit the Jesse Jackson’s action should refect on Jesse Jackson. I’m aware that as you say, that’s not the way the world works, but that’s the way it works for anglos, why should it be any different for us. All white people aren’t judged by the actions of David Duke and Fred Phelps of the world, why then do you support that treatment for blacks? I submit that your tacit support of people who do think that way demonstrates how much further we have to go in race relations.
In other words, I think your compaloints are against the wrong people. Just sit down and shut up, things are getting better. I disagree.
I agree with you Stuffy. I don’t support that treatment for blacks. I wish Jesse Jackson’s actions reflected only on himself. But, IMHO that’s not how the world works.
IMHO Jackson not only impact how whites and Asians view blacks, he also impacts how blacks view themselves. How did these young people at Cal Poly learn to be so easily offended? I think leaders like Jackson taught that behavior to them.
This is a point I’ve made over and over in these threads. You could add David Blackwell to that list and lots of others.
I think the civil rights movement has made an unfortunate U-turn. Thirty-five years ago, liberals and civil rights leaders went out of their way to acknowledge high-achieving black people. They sought to promote role models. But, somewhere along the line, being a victim became more important than being a success.
That’s why Maureen Dowd unfairly vilifies Clarence Thomas instead of praising his lucid opinions. In 1965, it would have been unthinkable to savage a successful black person, just because he was a conservative. Only an ardent racist would have done that. In 1965, David Blackwell gained fame as the leading black mathematician. Well, he’s still doing mathematics as a Professor Emeritus at Berkeley. He’s still a brilliant researcher and teacher, but his fame has diminished. High achievement isn’t as much in style, today.
So, your complaint is that rather than treat Thomas as a right-wing zealot who can be savaged by left-wing commentators, (as an individual), he should now be “protected” because he is black.
This would indicate that all your whining that Dowd was “racist” was really just a charade to try to throw labels at the Left.
While I find her article, as most of them are (though somehow you only seem to notice and get outraged when it’s a conservative), a nasty bit of fluff, you seem to have your head screwed on backwards here, since you’re playing the same game she does: making up her secret motivations and machinations for her, then condemming her for them.
Nor is there any reason that someone should praise Thomas if they disagree with his opnions, lucid or no. Dowd’s problem was that she didn’t speak to his opinions, but to his own personal history, which was irrelevant to the particular legal matter under discussion.
I think the civil rights movement has made an unfortunate U-turn. Thirty-five years ago, liberals and civil rights leaders went out of their way to acknowledge high-achieving black people. They sought to promote role models. But, somewhere along the line, being a victim became more important than being a success.
Sad but true,* December*. Unfortunatly the origins of victimization were inherent in the Reverend Martin Luther King’s grandiose scheme to build a power structure based on socialism that would unite poor black folks with poor southern whites. I know. I was a friend of Hosea Williams, who at the time was Martin Luther Kings right-hand man. I met the right honorable reverend Mr.King only once at the Birmingham airport. He shook my hand with much misgivings, I had advised Hosea Williams earlier in a well attended airport debate that the Reverend King’s plan was unrealistic. Poor black folks were obviously the only group that poor white folks could look down on. I was right. The movement never caught on and the vestiges of racism can still be found in many good poor black folk and in some poor whites of the south.