-
Features
Evergreen University Students have hissy fit when professor refuse to play along
- Thread starter TSwizzle
- Start date
Derec
Contributor
So, if you don't participate in a an overtly racist event you get accused of racism. Wonderful.
Evergreen College Motto: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength
Evergreen College Motto: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength
whichphilosophy
Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2004
- Messages
- 6,803
- Basic Beliefs
- Energy is itself a Life form
I thought marches against discrimination by race was to remove discrimination by race. It seems that for some reasons students want those of one race, in this case those classed as white to leave the campus for one day.
Nice Squirrel
Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2004
- Messages
- 6,083
- Location
- Minnesota
- Basic Beliefs
- Only the Nice Squirrel can save us.
whichphilosophy
Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2004
- Messages
- 6,803
- Basic Beliefs
- Energy is itself a Life form
It doesn't make it much clear for what seems to be a pointless exercise.
whichphilosophy
Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2004
- Messages
- 6,803
- Basic Beliefs
- Energy is itself a Life form
This is an interview with the professor concerned.
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3SdJhJ2lps[/YOUTUBE]
Perhaps someone will find an interview with the Student bodies involved.
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3SdJhJ2lps[/YOUTUBE]
Perhaps someone will find an interview with the Student bodies involved.
untermensche
Contributor
Who knows?
That video looked like an argument between about 4 people. With about 15 other people standing and watching.
But suppose this alleged story is true, some 200 people in this nation do not speak for anyone but themselves. They do not represent a movement or a threat to anyone anywhere else.
If they threatened or assaulted some professor they should be charged with a crime.
What actual crimes have been committed here?
And by whom exactly? Who has been charged? These people are not somehow magically above any laws.
But we are not a nation of vague innuendo. We are a nation of laws where people are innocent until proven guilty and only people who commit crimes are charged with crimes.
And all this is is vague innuendo.
It is worthless.
That video looked like an argument between about 4 people. With about 15 other people standing and watching.
But suppose this alleged story is true, some 200 people in this nation do not speak for anyone but themselves. They do not represent a movement or a threat to anyone anywhere else.
If they threatened or assaulted some professor they should be charged with a crime.
What actual crimes have been committed here?
And by whom exactly? Who has been charged? These people are not somehow magically above any laws.
But we are not a nation of vague innuendo. We are a nation of laws where people are innocent until proven guilty and only people who commit crimes are charged with crimes.
And all this is is vague innuendo.
It is worthless.
untermensche
Contributor
Computer glitch!!!
thebeave
Veteran Member
Just fucking madness.
untermensche
Contributor
Sure.
Begging to work when you can stay home and take the day off.
Madness.
Take a day off professor. You won't die.
I say there should be a national holiday where white people can just take the day off.
thebeave
Veteran Member
Taking a day off as, say, a reward for hard work and dedication is not the same thing as being told not to show up at work because you weren't born with the right color skin. I don't see how you can not see the difference. And no, there should not be a national holiday where someone gets a day off just because of their race.
They are not a movement or a threat. They are indicative of a growing problem. One that has come up numerous times now and appears to be growing worse.
Who said a crime was committed?
Would you consider it "a crime" if the student body or a small group of white students demanded that all black people stay home on a particular "no blacks" day?
untermensche
Contributor
Who do you say is being punished here?
The person who must go to work?
Or the person who gets the day off?
untermensche
Contributor
No they are not.
These students are pacifists compared to the students in the 60's.
It is a rare and shrinking problem.
But there happens to be an entire industry on the right dedicated to exaggerating a few distinct unconnected stories like this.
And a bunch of stooges crying wolf for them.
Last edited:
Arctish
Centimillionaire
I think they are.
Lately there's been an awful lot of people in our society openly advocating segregation. Some want neighborhoods without blacks, job sites without immigrants, customers and tenants without LGBTQ folks, and a country without Muslims. Others want whites to step aside and meekly accept the decrees of the non-white soon-to-be majority. Some merely wish for segregation to magically happen so they won't have to associate with people they prefer to shun, while others are demanding their racial/religious/ethnic/whatever biases are accommodated.
I have no idea what the students at Evergreen College who are pushing for a Day Without White People are hoping to accomplish, but if it's merely a stab at elevating a preferred racial group at the expense of another, we need to confront that socially destructive mindset head on.
untermensche
Contributor
I'll agree to this.
There are a lot of angry young white males out there and they harm people all the time.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/portland-hate-killer-ranted-about-stabbings-and-muslims_us_59297eb5e4b08861ed0cc9c1?123§ion=us_contributor
fast
Contributor
He won't die IF he takes a day off. Nice. I didn't catch that in my first reading.
There should be a national holiday where they can (or must) take the day off? At least you warn him (and warn him well) that taking a day off will not kill him. The course of action we take sure has its consequences doesn't it? Jump out a plane with a parachute, you won't die, but jump out without one, well, that's quite different isn't it!
1) From what I understand, in the past, Day of Absence has comprised of "students and faculty of color leav[ing] campus to show how much they contribute to the college." This year, however, in what was probably the feeling that there should be a reciprocity as there hadn't been in years past, the school administration thought that this year they'd ask instead the white faculty and students to leave. The goal was still reflection on issues of racism, bigotry, and prejudice.
2) However, the administration didn't anticipate a professor balking at what was he perceived as a "good faith" yet myopic and misguided attempt at reciprocity because of his reading of the entire event as smacking of non-white groups wanting white people to fade entirely into the void. This led the good professor to protest what he understood as a witless decision to pay back the sacrifices of non-white groups doing so voluntarily in the past to underscore minorities' importance to/in our country. However, the students perceived the professor's decision as both racist and intolerant because he didn't express the same type of concerns when non-whites had absented themselves on the same day in years past, making students question what they perceived as his hypocrisy and lack of commitment to racial tolerance.
If these scenes were written as part of a fictional play or film, I'd be tempted to read the events unfolding as a farce or comedy of errors because basically all parties seem to have "bigly" misunderstood one another: The administration and professor misunderstood each others' platforms on why doing the Day of Absence differently was a curse/boon. The professor and students misunderstood each others' positions on motivations to participate/not participate in this year's Day of Absence. The right-wing consumers of news are now misunderstanding the situation and characterizing this situation as part of the disease of liberalism getting worse on campuses. The progressive liberals have bought into the right-wingers' characterization of this situation and are concerned with this news highlighting a problem within liberalism and the left in general. However, as I now read the situation, I am thinking, "The path to hell [on earth] is paved with good intentions." Occam's Razor, anyone?
On a side note, in case anyone should wonder, I stand on this issue with the professor not because I think he's specifically right about what the event meant but because I think he's right to object to the administration's shortsightedness on this issue for a different reason: Who exactly are the "white people" on our college campuses? Under current definitions of "white," they include Arab Americans, yet it would be a gross misjudgment to consider them as part of the "privileged white" because of the current anti-immigrant climate, not to mention anti-Muslim climate if they just happen to be Muslim also. And what about Jewish people generally? While most Jewish peoples would also qualify currently as "white," antisemitism has been on the rise since the Trump administration took power in January. And what about intellectually or physically disabled "white" peoples? To the extent that able-bodied and able-minded individuals have privileges that intellectually or physically disabled whites do not enjoy, these whites cannot be considered privileged either. And what about people who have a mixed heritage or biracial background - is their self-identification as "white" the key to privilege and access denied others - or will that not depend on how much they look "white"?
Peace.
2) However, the administration didn't anticipate a professor balking at what was he perceived as a "good faith" yet myopic and misguided attempt at reciprocity because of his reading of the entire event as smacking of non-white groups wanting white people to fade entirely into the void. This led the good professor to protest what he understood as a witless decision to pay back the sacrifices of non-white groups doing so voluntarily in the past to underscore minorities' importance to/in our country. However, the students perceived the professor's decision as both racist and intolerant because he didn't express the same type of concerns when non-whites had absented themselves on the same day in years past, making students question what they perceived as his hypocrisy and lack of commitment to racial tolerance.
If these scenes were written as part of a fictional play or film, I'd be tempted to read the events unfolding as a farce or comedy of errors because basically all parties seem to have "bigly" misunderstood one another: The administration and professor misunderstood each others' platforms on why doing the Day of Absence differently was a curse/boon. The professor and students misunderstood each others' positions on motivations to participate/not participate in this year's Day of Absence. The right-wing consumers of news are now misunderstanding the situation and characterizing this situation as part of the disease of liberalism getting worse on campuses. The progressive liberals have bought into the right-wingers' characterization of this situation and are concerned with this news highlighting a problem within liberalism and the left in general. However, as I now read the situation, I am thinking, "The path to hell [on earth] is paved with good intentions." Occam's Razor, anyone?
On a side note, in case anyone should wonder, I stand on this issue with the professor not because I think he's specifically right about what the event meant but because I think he's right to object to the administration's shortsightedness on this issue for a different reason: Who exactly are the "white people" on our college campuses? Under current definitions of "white," they include Arab Americans, yet it would be a gross misjudgment to consider them as part of the "privileged white" because of the current anti-immigrant climate, not to mention anti-Muslim climate if they just happen to be Muslim also. And what about Jewish people generally? While most Jewish peoples would also qualify currently as "white," antisemitism has been on the rise since the Trump administration took power in January. And what about intellectually or physically disabled "white" peoples? To the extent that able-bodied and able-minded individuals have privileges that intellectually or physically disabled whites do not enjoy, these whites cannot be considered privileged either. And what about people who have a mixed heritage or biracial background - is their self-identification as "white" the key to privilege and access denied others - or will that not depend on how much they look "white"?
Peace.
Utter silliness. "Day of abscences" was crap from the beginning but I can understand how they came to believe that it was a good thing.
All this just shows that we are first humans and should not group us according to color or heritage etc.
We belong together.
All this just shows that we are first humans and should not group us according to color or heritage etc.
We belong together.
whichphilosophy
Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2004
- Messages
- 6,803
- Basic Beliefs
- Energy is itself a Life form
The bigotry is by those who organised this asinine action.
It isn't that complex. According to the professor he just wanted to teach class.
The best way for people to protest and to show their worth is to study well and succeed. White people as they put it are not the highest earners in the US. Asians are. Muslims who live in the US are more empowered than in the countries they or their ancestors left. That's why more wish to travel to the US and become citizens.
Calling for a day without white people is by definition racist. What about people who look white but are Arabs (and I have met many) or mixed race. Is there a determination as to what is white?
Shall we say that a half and quarter white are not permitted but a 1/8 white can be. This is how the Nazis did this.
There is no anti-Muslim climate in the US. Muslims, notably women are more empowered in the US than they are in countries they have fled from. There is bias also but the advantages outweigh such bigotry.