Racial Hysteria Triumphs on Campus

I mean, posting links is a rule of the BBS. It is generally asked for unless the poster is a liberal and then no one vets anything they say. It is also common courtesy and as I said before the best you could hope is that you spark interest in a reader where they want to read more. It wasn't a large request, most people follow that rule, and I find it odd you found it so hard to follow.

 

tis cool, go forward and vet if you want haha

again: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...ial-climate/KqHBA90H00S2AIXqBfWF4J/story.html

be well, friend. If pouhe wants to respond, I leave it to him.

 

It is hard to take claims of rampant racism seriously when the examples given include being asked what high school you attended and what extra-curricular activities you participated in, the existence of parties one could only access if you knew certain people (isn't that nearly every party), "social and bureaucratic systems set up in ways familiar to white, upper-middle-class students but foreign to minorities" (whatever the hell that means) and overhearing debates on why affirmative action is wrong.

 

Respond to what, your last query to me was some swipe about fairy dust.

 

You asked for specific instances. There were specific instances if you read the article. You can choose to not respond to them or ridicule them, is it still "absence of occurrence"?

(The swipe was due to the fact that you chose to ignore the most egregious example of specific racism detailed here, the black tape that started this discussion)

 

It's also hard to skirt over faculty underrepresentation, a school seal that celebrates a slaveowner, racist comments in class, the fact that parties are subjected to a "visual test", and the fact that "social and bureaucratic systems familiar to white people" could mean areas of clear exclusion--Harvard only just recently abolished "all-male" elite clubs a year ago.

 

LOL from your article

When "hate speech" really becomes specific threats against minorities including and up to lynching.

You spent this whole thread saying the violation of freedom of expression by political correctness was some kind of apocalypse, now you're saying that a peaceful form of expression (a petition which you ridicule) can be met with specific threats of violence (lynching) and you won't give a damn except to ridicule the people who were expressing themselves in the first place!

The students are free to express themselves and say whatever they want about the mascot without being threatened with possible criminal activity and violence. You went "decline of a nation" on somebody yelling at a professor expressing his rights of free expression, now you're dismissing people threatening students expressing their rights of free expression with lynching?

 

Faculty underrepresentation is not a real issue. There are no color based hiring quotas at Harvard Law (perhaps because they recognize that quotas are a dangerous road) and there has been no proof of discriminatory hiring practices. Until someone proves otherwise, I would think the presumption is that Harvard hired the best applicants.

"Racist comments in class" could be anything coming from someone that says it is racism to debate why affirmative action is wrong or to have parties that are by invitation. For example, someone in class may have said affirmative action is wrong.

A seal that celebrates a slaveowner? I would imagine the seal celebrates someone that was critical to founding the law school (looking it up, I was correct). Just like we still have Washington State, Washington, D.C., the Jefferson Memorial, the Washington Monument, etc. which all celebrate slaveowners. The seal doesn't recognize him for his ownership of slaves, but for his bequest which created the school. Why are the students fine with attending a school founded by a slaveowner, but not with recognizing his founding of the school in the seal? Anything to b**** about I guess.

Entrance into nightclubs is often predicated on a visual test. That doesn't equal racism, it means that parties and clubs with hot girls attract guys.

I don't think they would use such vague language as "social and bureaucratic systems familiar to white people" to mean no blacks allowed clubs. Maybe that is what it means, but I doubt it. Why have such vague and low impact language in that one instance when they were not afraid to be more direct in talking about other things like having 9 black law professors?

 

You'd assume that, would you? Even at the highest levels of education, institutional discrimination exists.

http://qz.com/357445/black-harvard-...a-job-call-back-as-white-state-college-grads/

http://www.npr.org/2014/04/22/305814367/evidence-of-racial-gender-biases-found-in-faculty-mentoring

Racial/gender biases found in faculty mentoring

Of course, getting hired and having a mentor makes a difference as to who becomes a professor now. And the undergrads of the past would have been through even more systematic crap.

Racist comments in class could also mean being told “you’re black, but you’re so articulate.” Comments on that?

Don't presume that the powerful men you revere now will have their places in history sealed forever. It matters that people like Woodrow Wilson and Royall are having their place in history questioned for the cruelty they inflicted to others. In this case, Royall didn't even found a nation--he owned slaves and donated some of his gains to make his name at Harvard. It is unacceptable to many constituents of Harvard that this continues. The same happened to Cecil Rhodes at the University of Cape Town, and will continue to happen.

haha, a visual test for events that operates like a club for faculty events, based on beauty norms we hold right?

http://cswr.columbia.edu/?article=t...f-european-standards-of-beauty-on-black-women

And it's not as if stronger language has willed people into action. A Mizzou professor claimed fellow faculty members called her the N-word. We have a case above where people are being threatened with lynching for a petition, and somehow it's "ridiculous"...for the petition-signers!

And I wonder what your comments are with regards to somebody placing black tape over the faces of the 9 black law professors, or do you subscribe to the assumption that this is also the action of "online trolls"?

 

And it has spread to at least one president.

[rQUOTEr]The Case Against Woodrow Wilson at Princeton

Student protesters at Princeton performed a valuable public service last week when they demanded that the administration acknowledge the toxic legacy of Woodrow Wilson, who served as university president and New Jersey governor before being elected to the White House. He was an unapologetic racist whose administration rolled back the gains that African-Americans achieved just after the Civil War, purged black workers from influential jobs and transformed the government into an instrument of white supremacy.

...[/rQUOTEr]

 

I love what the right-wing nuts are doing. They come up with silly cases of people being stupid and then use that to undermine legitimate concerns about race on campus.

It's a very Orwellian move. Associate legitimate cases with illegitimate causes, and then imply the legitimate are therefore silly.

It's a strawman. No one is saying a Viking Mascot should be debated here. Who cares? Some people are going to say and do stupid things.

That doesn't mean there is no such thing as racism and it doesn't need to be addressed.

 

That's what happens when idiots cry wolf over and over, just looking for something to be outraged over.

 

Count down to Jefferson and Washington are removed from money, government buildings and the like.

 

I was directly addressing your post asserting that someone not having claimed to see racism in response to someone else simply stating that they've experienced it was somehow trivializing or dismissive, which it isn't. As far as the examples, asking someone where they went to high school isn't racist or racially insensitive in any context or circumstance; what people say in a third party conversation about affirmative action is both completely inoffensive and actually none of the hypersensitive, eavesdropping black student's business.

 

So you are calling yourself an idiot?

 

That study shows not that Harvard is discriminatory, which is the argument being put forward by the student protesters, but that the US job market is discriminatory against those with distinctively black names (and we have previously discussed saddling one's kid with a stupid name), even if they are a graduate of an elite university. One premise does not support the other. Absent evidence of Harvard Law School having discriminatory hiring practices, it is only fair to assume they do not.

This would be evidence of bias by existing faculty members of some schools. Conspicuously not mentioned were Harvard, any law school, and Harvard Law in particular. So not only is this not evidence of discriminatory hiring practices at Harvard Law, it isn't evidence of anything to do with Harvard Law whatsoever.

Getting accepted also has something to do with becoming a professor, no? Yet these protesting students say it is racist to discuss what is wrong with affirmative action, which actually provably exists. Seems like they take no issue with systemic racism, so long as it works in their favor.

Could be that as well. We don't know what the comments were, because this was one of the complaints they chose to be very vague about. Why be so vague about some of the complaints while being specific about others? I am sure it is because the complaints they were vague about are too outrageous for the sensitive audiences they are trying to reach, and not at all because if they got specific their complaints would be shown to be utter nonsense, right?

They are going to a school that exists because the man created it with his own money. They are choosing to profit off of that legacy, but whitewash over the symbol of it. This is not new among race hustlers. How many of those who talk about "Amerikkka" stick around taking advantage of all that the nation of their oppression has to offer?

Her complaint, to my understanding, was not for faculty events, this is a student complaining about parties being thrown by other students. Do you think appearance is not important to people once they decide to go to Harvard? The arbiters of what is beautiful in terms of entry into these parties would also be the individuals conducting this "visual check" and not determined not by some national standard. It is entirely possible for black female Harvard students to throw a party and let in only those people they find beautiful, using whatever standard they choose. The fact that these people can't figure out that people throwing a private party can include or exclude whomsoever they choose tells me they should spend a little more time focusing on their classes and a little less time worrying about racism at Harvard Law.

Yes, a Mizzou professor claimed that unnamed faculty members called her the N-word at some time in the past, a charge that is completely untestable. What exactly should be done about that? Do we need to pass a law censoring speech so she has legal recourse if it happens again (and she can be bothered to say who said it and when)?

A threat of lynching is a criminal act. There are already ways to deal with that.

We have no idea who did it or why. The first person to see it could simply have pulled the tape off and it would be a meaningless and powerless non-event. We do know that hate crime hoaxes have happened before on college campuses, and involved a lot more than some black tape. Creating fake hit lists, painting swastikas, etc.

 

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Dd7FixvoKBw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

I could get 50 students walking around any campus to agree to just about anything. It's no more indicative of anything than you posting as a race baiting, ignorant wingnut is proof that Americans enthusiastically support stupidity.