<p>So,what does it tell posters that Harvard Law Review instituted AA to bring more women onto the editorial board? Anything about outrage and lack of merit? </p>
<p>@ucbalumnus I am aware of those threads. My point that is being missed is there are no forced diversity programs on those colleges. And I also bet that those HBCUs accepted others for survival and financial reasons, especially with government guaranteeing loans - that is light years different than to recruitment via diversity programs with the government watching over your shoulder. The threads you cite are a case in point. Many of their students do not like their scholarships (their term) going to others that do not look like them, and last time I checked Howard or anyone else is not citing the students for racism etc. Let white students say that at another school and see what happens. One can say it, the other one cannot. </p>
<p>lookingforward, you just keep saying you disagree, and you and others keep implying I don’t get it. Some imply worse. But so far you have not gone through my arguments one by one and countered them. I could say you don’t get it, but I suppose that would be a sign of a condition whites are accused of which I won’t name on here. Please explain the inconsistencies and contradictions in posters’ and students’ positions about the existence or not of black culture and the existence or not of a black perspective. I outlined these up-thread. Please explain why my assertion is wrong that the offense of some of the students comes from their own classist bias against members of their own race. Please explain why it’s OK to have a black theater group and not a white theater group. Please explain why you think holding up a sign and posting the photo online is a kind, tolerance-promoting, and effective way to handle interpersonal conflict? Please explain who “people of color” are (would a darker-skinned Italian qualify?), and why only “people of color” should be invited to join in the movement against ignorance and insensitivity on campus. Why is it OK, and not racist, to suggest by this decision that only white people are offenders? Do Indians, Hispanics or Chinese persons never say something insensitive to black people? Do black people never say anything racially insensitive to whites or others? I could go on, but have spent way too much time here. I’m done now.</p>
<p>@TheGFG - I can give you the answer. Beneficiaries of programs do not feel the need to critically respond because then they have to rationally explain a double standard and double-speak. Since, by definition, double standards are literally impossible to explain away except by admitting some perverse preference is at work, then the best approach is never to give a critically supported answer; just take the empty I disagree route. Then if you really push for an answer, the next term for you is you know what. Agreed, I think we are at the end of this conversation, but it was enlightening and I, for one, appreciated everyone’s comments. Sad to say the students’ actions are not going to have the effect they expected. Exposure, yes, but the endgame will be a negative. </p>
<p>Oxford has come back with a second version - ‘We are all Oxford’. It’s come about because the students were concerned that the first version might put ethnic minorities and other non-traditional students off from applying (an entirely legitimate concern IMO). It includes some of the original ethnic minority people who were photographed, as well as diversity of sexuality and socio-economic background <a href=“http://wearealloxford.■■■■■■■■■■/”>http://wearealloxford.■■■■■■■■■■/</a> </p>
<p>GFG. I don’t feel obliged to break down your thinking points one by one. I’d prefer you start by telling me what your statements are based on, so I can follow. My bold here.</p>
<p>Please explain why my assertion is wrong that the offense of some of the students comes from their own classist bias against members of their own race. GFG, I can’t figure out where this assumption comes from. What do you want me to say? They held up signs in front of a camera. I don’t ascribe this to “classist bias against members of their own race.” We don’t even know what the SES backgrounds of these kids are. Nor their individual academic and personal experiences, in general. In that respect, what we see is all we get. No more, no less-- unless one supposes.</p>
<p>You wrote: “[poster’s] mention of the word classist made me think that aspects of this project are actually classist on the part of the participants. What they are really angry about is that some people mistakenly assumed that THEY were like some other African-Americans who are less articulate, not as well-educated, and have different life goals than they do”</p>
<p>I agree you think that- what led you to this assumption? That it’s class based, that it’s anger? Why is it even relevant to bring up that some people are less articulate?</p>
<p>You wrote: "It seems to me that these students are saying “We are still the victims of racism and micro-aggressions, because our Harvard peers make comments to us that reveal they expected us to be more different from them, but are acknowledging that in reality we are every bit as Harvard-like as they are!” And the rest of that paragraph. I see them pointing out comments that bug them. </p>
<p>“Or are they a special group that to this day are victimized and continue to experience the results of their past oppressions, which include poverty, broken family life, poor education, poor opportunity, unemployment, etc…? So long as black community leaders preach the latter narrative, and demand reparations and remedies from government and society, then I think that black people are going to be viewed according to those socio-economic assumptions.”</p>
<p>No, not all groups of Blacks need to be viewed according to anyone’s assumptions. Or some incident on a bus. They can be viewed on their own merits or lacks. One day, I hope we are there,</p>
<p>
Don’t be silly, TheGfG. Black people are humans just like white people are humans. You know what a human looks like angry! </p>
<p>
The Black Theatre Group was created to provide blacks opportunities in entertainment in a time where they were (and still are) underrepresented. To create a white theatre group for not make sense because whites are not underrepresented n entertainment. Plays and literature are namely white-based. The same goes for black movies. Black movies are movies that the majority of the casting is black. These movies are geared to providing actors opportunities that they otherwise would not be cast for. </p>
<p>That’s the only explanation I can give you. I personally love black movies; especially, Tyler Perry movies. They provide a moral or lesson learned in every movie. The characters and their situations are relatable. I enjoy them. :)</p>
<p>@YoHo Golden posted that “most people…are NOT racists” your post implies they said “most people are”</p>
<p>Well for me this thread kind of hit a dead end with the “child in the shopping cart” example. This one small exchange has made me realize just how far apart we really are in understanding each other. I just cannot comprehend a frame of mind that insists on assuming the worst of our fellow man. If you look hard enough for something, I guarantee you will find it. </p>
<p>My final thoughts are this: the most successful people I know, regardless of their race, religion or ethnicity, have the same personality trait. They instinctively seek out commonalities with other people. These connections that they are so successful in making, are not in fact major ones. So while they may not share common backgrounds, perhaps they are both runners, or perhaps they like the same music or cuisine. The point is they focus on what they share with another human being, not what divides them. </p>
<p>There is not a human being who leaves this earth without encountering people who insult them or attempt to make them think “less” of themselves. It is an unfortunate human trait that seems to have survived throughout the ages. But people who denigrate others are rendered powerless by those who truly believe in themselves and their capabilities. Personally, I don’t give people who insult me the benefit of recognition. Since when is someone’s else’s perception of me more important or relevant than my own self-image? </p>
<p>Starting with our current president, I can think of a multitude of african americans who have scaled the heights of their professions. You don’t have to look hard to find people of color in the highest echelons of politics, academia, the arts and business. How much time do you think these people spent thinking about some remark that may or may not have been made with ill intent? My answer to that question is zero. They were too busy engineering their own greatness. </p>
<p>Perhaps I can “expand the horizon” here. This discussion reminds me of this thread I saw not long after I joined CC:
<a href=“Daily Princetonian Makes Fun of Stereotypical Asian Students - Applying to College - College Confidential Forums”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/290114-daily-princetonian-makes-fun-of-stereotypical-asian-students-p1.html</a>
Curious how the two sides see this in the grand scheme of things? Compare and contrast with “I too am Harvard”, if you will. </p>
<p>Yes, great people have dreams and find connections, but it would be very hard to find a person of color in the U.S. who has not been subject to denigration in ways visible and invisible to whites. More than any experience that I’ve had as a white person or as the parent of children of color, I have been able to arrive this through reading and considering over the course of years a very revealing article. Peggy McIntosh wrote it years ago while she was faculty at Wellesley, and it has grown in presence. You can find “Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack of White Privilege” all over the web: <a href=“http://amptoons.com/blog/files/mcintosh.html”>http://amptoons.com/blog/files/mcintosh.html</a></p>
<p>Now I know that many of you will skim it and rant about it, but to really get to a new understanding of race, you would be better off to read it once a week for a month or two. </p>
<p>On a slightly different note, someone up list noted that black and white are words that separate people who are not such colors. Although I use the words, I do so with the understanding that our language is pushing us apart with these words that were developed centuries ago in a more racist time. It is the legacies of racism so deeply in the culture that make racism so hard to escape if you haven’t done a fair amount of cognitive and emotional work.</p>
<p>So, white privilege is in essence the secular version of original sin.</p>
<p>Original sin is the doctrine which holds that human nature has been morally and ethically corrupted due to the disobedience of mankind’s first parents to the revealed will of God. In the Bible, the first human transgression of God’s command is described as the sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden resulting in what theology calls the Fall of mankind. The doctrine of original sin holds that every person born into the world is tainted by the Fall such that all of humanity is ethically debilitated, and people are powerless to rehabilitate themselves, unless rescued by God.</p>
<p>White privilege is the doctrine which holds that whites have been morally and ethically corrupted due to the behaviors of their forebearers. In the Book Of Peggy, the first white transgression is the simple act of being born white. The doctrine of white privilege holds that every white person born into the world starts out as a presumed oppressor, an unfairly advantaged person, and a willing and eager participant in a damaged culture. All white people are ethically debilitated, and they are powerless to rehabilitate themselves, unless rescued by Peggy.</p>
<p>{quote]Now I know that many of you will skim it and rant about it, but to really get to a new understanding of race, you would be better off to read it once a week for a month or two.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, no matter how much the doctrine of original sin was read, re-read, re-explained and expounded as THE TRUTH…it was nuts then and it is nuts now (sorry folks, only other Catholics can say this and not be religiously insulting since only WE have experience the far reaching reverberations of this dogma)</p>
<p>Or it could be this:
“White privilege refers to the set of societal privileges that white people benefit from beyond those commonly experienced by people of color in the same social, political, or economic spaces (nation, community, workplace, income, etc.)
The term denotes both obvious and less obvious unspoken advantages that white persons may not recognize they have, which distinguishes it from overt bias or prejudice. These include cultural affirmations of one’s own worth; presumed greater social status; and freedom to move, buy, work, play, and speak freely.
The concept of white privilege also implies the right to assume the universality of one’s own experiences, marking others as different or exceptional while perceiving oneself as normal. It can be compared to and/or combined with the concept of male privilege.”</p>
<p>What does this “white privilege” concept mean to all of those poor white kids struggling to get through CC’s and working at Starbucks. They are not likely to be receptive to this argument from a bunch of kids of whatever color at Harvard for obvious reasons. </p>
<p>What’s been fascinating to me, Mamalion, is that often when our family or just H and I are out together, it’s assumed that we are NOT together and I see, up close and personally, the difference in how people of color are treated. Because people think my H is by himself, I’ve seen store staff ignore him but wait on me. I’ve seen people offer me a seat on the bus but leap out of the way with an angry look when he comes to stand next to me. I’ve seen hospital staff block his way when trying to follow me into the room. And my S and his same-age black cousin have run into the same thing, more than a few times, when out together. </p>
<p>Somebody upthread, maybe more than one person, was railing about White Privilege. But it’s real. It’s assumed, if you’re white, you’re basically ok. If you’re a black man, even in a suit, sometimes you’re just…suspect. Or don’t belong, or are dangerous in some way. It’s not about being angry or feeling victimized, or making things up to feel righteous about. It’s about pointing out that there are still things that need to change. If that Harvard project gets even one person to rethink what they’ve done, it will have been worth it.</p>
<p>GFG railed people don’t read enough. I suggest folks look into some of the realities. Investigations into housing practices, fair business practices, etc. These are not angry community leaders, demanding reparations or making excuses; they are govt and U sponsored. And, as said, you can look at the amici briefs to see just how the privates defend AAction. It’s not what one guesses or what one heard on a place like CC- why not go to the sources?</p>
<p>Chew on this: <a href=“'I, Too, Am Harvard': A Mantra For Recognition Becomes An Anthem : NPR”>http://www.npr.org/2014/03/14/290242412/i-too-am-harvard-a-mantra-for-recognition-becomes-an-anthem</a></p>
<p>And: <a href=“http://itooamiowa.■■■■■■■■■■/”>http://itooamiowa.■■■■■■■■■■/</a>
There’s a nice piece in the Daily Iowan, noting how many corners are presenting something like this, what the school’s role can be.</p>
<p>LF: That definition works fine. WP is something with which you are born. You arrive in this existence with this as part of your soul. It’s in your starter backpack. Can’t arrive without it. Nothing YOU did or did not do matters, it is simply a part of you because …well …because. Same as original sin, the only way to NOT have it be part of you is to be born as something else - say an elephant or an English sheep dog (having one of these own me is on my bucket list).</p>
<p>The best you can hope for once stained with WP is to go through the appropriate rituals and make amends for the thing you personally did not do. Your entire environment will continue to be full of temptation to which you, the inherently morally corrupt being, will be drawn. But, since you are what you are, broken and clueless from the start, the best you can do is spend your life working like heck to do the best you can to make up for the wrongs you did not commit. </p>
<p>So, if your black you’re starter backpack includes a ‘stain’ of inferiority - as assumed by the morally corrupt environment to which you’re born You got it because born black If your white, your stain is your historical part to the above mentioned assumption of inferiority. You got that because are white.</p>
<p>Maybe we need to find another planet…this one is broken from the get-go.</p>
<p>It get it, I really do.</p>
<p>Dietz, I didn’t make it up, it’s wiki, with many footnotes to references. I don’t know why original sin comes up, except in the sense some believe one can never be free of sin. Taken out of the religious context, “broken and clueless,” it doesn’t take much effort to aim to be fair and to filter one’s words. To not advance stereotypes and pre-notions as an excuse for, well, stereotyping.</p>
<p>My very evangelical friend is among the most tolerant I know. Her personal religious views and studies do fuel that. But, for many, all this falls into what we might call, “lessons your mama taught you.” Or should have.</p>
<p>I see your edit, “So, if your black you’re starter backpack includes a ‘stain’ of inferiority.” I know you are trying to put that in your above context. But, outside the classroom (academic discussions, meant to question widely, with guidance and reference,) it’s a stunner. </p>
<p>LF: Okay…rework…So, if your black you’re starter backpack includes a WHITE CULTURE FALSE ASSUMPTION ‘stain’ of inferiority. Better?</p>
<p>Look, I acknowledge WP is just something those of us born white will have to spend a lifetime working to rectify…after all…one must be responsible for the behavior of one’s ancestors. And it is only right to assign the WP label to anyone white. I now know I must hang my head low and spend time doing penance for my wrongs which I committed through my blood lineage. </p>
<p>However, according to the article cited by lionmom…I am not nearly as burden with the job of reparations as my male off spring…boy oh boy…he better get a move on to rectify his birth inherited social and moral deficits.</p>
<p>Again…I get it…!</p>