At the risk of being called a cunt (I’m neither a woman nor a British male* so I would more accurately be called a dick), I would like to know what the more liberal members of this thread feel about the fact that UD dropped this particular workshop. Do you feel that it was done because:
a. They hadn’t really reviewed the course material before it was implemented and were unaware of any potential controversy it could engender;
b. they had reviewed the course material, didn’t initially see a problem with it, but upon further review have come to the conclusion that the workshop material was too extremist in it’s teachings;
c. they had reviewed the material, did not and still do not see a problem with what was being taught, but have decided to stop using it because they want to avoid bad press;
d. some combination of the above?
Or maybe you have another reason. We can pretty much figure what the more conservative members here will say (the answer is “c”, if you’re not sure). I think that TPTB at UD didn’t think the courseware was unrealistic or extreme and still don’t but don’t want to be vilified any further on Drudge, Rush, O’Reilly, Hannity and Fox News. I feel that they are saying, “Jeez, I don’t get what they’re so pissed about. But if stopping the course will shut them up, we’ll do it.”
*in some other thread it was discussed how British men will call each other “cunts”.
I’m one of the more conservative members, I believe, but I’m not sure if I lean towards “c.”. I think c is a possibility, but also that it’s quite possible that it was a, and that they trusted her credentials and/or recommendations from other institutions who had hired her. She obviously has a career doing this kind of thing, and for some reason, her philosophies were not controversial in the eyes of others who had been in her program. When you think of it that way, there would have been no reason, necessarily, for the university to believe that there would be a problem.
The reason it became a problem I’m not sure of, but I would imagine it’s because some individual was annoyed by it, and enlisted FIRE’s assistance in the matter. If no one had ever complained before, and this woman had gained a good reputation, she may just be hired for this type of thing as a matter of course.
I truly don’t know whether it was a, b, or c, or some other reason. Having spent a fair bit of time in college environments as undergrad, grad student, and instructor, none of the options presented would surprise me very much. They might have failed to adequately evaluate the program in the first place, they might have changed their mind about it, or they might just want to avoid bad press.
I have no general problem with attempts by universities to cultivate a certain moral and ethical sensibility in students through a Residence Life program. Coleges are not just degree mills. But i think that such programs should be limited in the amount of time they take (students have enough to do with their classes), and that actual presentations like this, especially when they push a particular viewpoint, should not be compulsory in Residence Life.
Despite the fact that i find this woman’s definition of racism very problematic, and believe that it obfuscates much more than it clarifies, i don’t have any problem with her being brought onto campus to give a presentation. Even if the school knew what she was going to say, word for word, i don’t think it’s a problem that she was allowed to speak.
My biggest problem right now involves the conflicting claims over whether it was compulsory for students to attend these sessions. In an article in today’s Chronicle of Higher Education (here’s a link, but i think you need to be a subscriber to view it), it said:
The denial that students were required to attend has been disputed but quite a lot of UDel students and alumni over the past couple of days. Many of them claim that attendance was compulsory. This is an issue that needs addressing, in my view. The fact that the university feels the need to stress that the program was voluntary suggests that they know that making presentations like this compulsory is problematic. And if it does turn out that students were forced to attend, this says something about university policy.
Also, i think it’s a bit naive to claim that the program didn’t want students to adopt specific views. When you present students with a very radical and unusual interpretation of racism like this, and apparently give them little in the way of alternative explanations for the term and its use, you’re operating in a rather intellectually restrictive environment.
I’m not arguing that every viewpoint from one side of the political spectrum needs to be balanced by something from the other, but to present a marginal and controversial position as if it were common and unproblematic does the students a disservice, i think.
I know if I goaded you long enough you’d participate, mhendo. And when you did it was thoughtful, on topic and contributed to the thread. Why the hell didn’t you do that in the first place, instead of posting a meaningless drive by cheep shot?
My response wasn’t to you, so don’t flatter yourself. As i said from the beginning, there’s a valid discussion to be had about this incident, but you did your best to poison the well and prevent rational discussion from the very beginning.
And nothing that you or anyone has said over the past five pages changes the stupidity of your OP, or the stupidity of your ongoing argument that this particular incident somehow demonstrates a fundamental problem of liberalism.
Well, the problem I see is the appearance that some radical or extreme liberal thoughts are given tacit approval or a pass because the presenter means well. I’m not saying that this is necessarily the case here, but people are trying to rationalize the outrageous definitions that Dr. Butler is providing by pointing out societal racism, and so the posters give the appearance that they can accept what is being said. They’re denials of the definition were not strong statements of, “That’s a load of crap!” They were more along the lines of, “Yeah, I don’t think the definition is accurate but if you look at history…”
I agree that there is societal racism. I agree that there are definite advantages that white people, especially white males, have over other members of society. But the definitions given are ludicrous and should be laughed at, not justified.
Let’s reverse it: Dr. Watson talks about lower IQs in blacks. Poster X says that while the assertion isn’t accurate if you look at the lack of development and progress in Africa then there might be some basis to what he thinks.
How long would it take for people to jump down Poster X’s throat, start a Pit thread and condemn him as a racist?
If someone says something outrageous, call them on it. If the thinking they are using is incorrect, be straightforward and adamant about it. Don’t mealy mouth, don’t be wishy washy. As someone once said, call a digging implement a digging implement.
As others have pointed out, some of these cases aren’t exactly recent. (Does “academic freedom” apply to non-academics?)
I apologize for my ignorance of these egregious attacks. And I thank you for brightening my day! Apparently the young folks of today aren’t as hopeless as I’d feared.
Please help me with this. Are you saying that you are happy at people shouting down or assaulting folks that they disagree with? That’s very mature. In a university environment where the acquiring and disseminating of knowledge should be lauded, you think that it is not only acceptable to drown out the speeches of people you agree with but that physical attacks are permitted.
I wonder what would happen if some kid was being a real asshole to some liberal politician? Would he be allowed to continue at the microphone, talking over the moderator and the guest speaker? Would he get to keep making outrageous statements and insults? Would the audience support him?
I wonder how people would react if UD paid David Duke to speak to its freshman. Hey, they’re just presenting another point of view in order to spark discussion and debate, right?
unless my handy dandy “political leanings of dopers” device is miscalibrated, I believe that Linty Fresh is from your end o’ the spectrum. Hence, their comment.
