I think the point is that when you see a person wearing old out-of-fashion clothes, is your (or anyone else's) thought "Well it's to be expected since [ethnic minority group] folks are poor" or is the thought "Hey that [white] chick is rockin' a retro style." Not necessarily a great choice for examples of white privilege but I trust you can see the point they're attempting to get at.
There you have a classic example of the problem. What if I imagine every time Sue looks art a Welsh person she sees a Nazi, so then I can condemn Sue for being a racist, even though she is not, and the "problem" only exists in my imagination.
Someone help me out here, I honestly have no idea what this means or how it relates to the subject. Who is condemning anyone for being racist and how does viewing the Welsh as Nazis figure into it? (Not that racism is not worthy of condemnation, and I have all sorts of ideas about the Welsh, but still, WTF? )
I'll ask you again, why should someone doing a degree in math be forced to subscribe or pass a test on politically correct thought? Why is this test and "module" for all students?
I've said it before in this thread but I'll reproduce it here just for you:
... the goal is to get the student to be able to see how ingrained biases color perception and expectations regarding race and class, so they might at least have some notion how to avoid being offensive racist classist pigs, at least within the school's community. I am certain that in context, the "correct" answers are more like, "I can see how in this situation [x behavior] can be a manifestation of white privilege/racial discrimination" or "I can see how [some aspect of our socio-politico-legal systems] inherently disadvantages minorities." The quoted story in the OP fails to provide much enlightenment about the course itself, providing only the most "outrageous" details to set its focus on snide insinuations and opposition to the program (including "several people" "on social media" and a "tweet" .) I don't read the Telegraph but judging from this article, XKA's description above seems spot on.
Still waiting for someone to tell me why passing this module and test, earning a gold star, in politically correct thinking is a good thing.
It's not "a gold star in politically correct thinking," it's learning to recognize how some behaviors, expectations and societal institutions may exemplify and reinforce white privilege and systemic racism. And you've already been told why it's a "good thing," you just refuse to accept it. If you don't think knowing about such things is of any value, then don't attend the University of Kent. No one is forcing anyone to do so.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Someone help me out here, I honestly have no idea what this means or how it relates to the subject. Who is condemning anyone for being racist and how does viewing the Welsh as Nazis figure into it? (Not that racism is not worthy of condemnation, and I have all sorts of ideas about the Welsh, but still, WTF? )
You pointed out that;
I think the point is that when you see a person wearing old out-of-fashion clothes, is your (or anyone else's) thought "Well it's to be expected since [ethnic minority group] folks are poor" or is the thought "Hey that [white] chick is rockin' a retro style."
So, if someone may or may not think something, ("Sue thinks the Welsh are Nazis") we should have courses mandated to address these imaginary thoughts.
I've said it before in this thread but I'll reproduce it here just for you:
... the goal is to get the student to be able to see how ingrained biases color perception and expectations regarding race and class, so they might at least have some notion how to avoid being offensive racist classist pigs, at least within the school's community. I am certain that in context, the "correct" answers are more like, "I can see how in this situation [x behavior] can be a manifestation of white privilege/racial discrimination" or "I can see how [some aspect of our socio-politico-legal systems] inherently disadvantages minorities." The quoted story in the OP fails to provide much enlightenment about the course itself, providing only the most "outrageous" details to set its focus on snide insinuations and opposition to the program (including "several people" "on social media" and a "tweet" .) I don't read the Telegraph but judging from this article, XKA's description above seems spot on.
I'll ask again then, if someone has gone to Uni to study maths, why should they have to pass a test in this politically correct thought crime test?
It's not "a gold star in politically correct thinking," it's learning to recognize how some behaviors, expectations and societal institutions may exemplify and reinforce white privilege and systemic racism.
So it's politically correct thinking.
If you don't think knowing about such things is of any value, then don't attend the University of Kent. No one is forcing anyone to do so.
Well that's a good idea, if you want to study maths, or physics, or geology, don't attend a Uni which mandates a test in politically correct thought, gold stars or no gold stars, (and we all know who mandated the wearing of stars for people.)
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
A university philosophy professor has hit back at the campaign of 'bullying' over her views on trans rights, saying: 'What kind of future does a university have where intimidation determines what is said or taught?'
Kathleen Stock, 48, an expert in gender and sexual orientation who works for the University of Sussex, has been branded a 'transphobe' by some outraged students who have put up posters and called for her to be fired.
Signs put up in the pedestrian tunnel connecting Falmer train station to the university's campus under the A27 said Ms Stock 'makes trans students unsafe' and 'we're not paying £9,250 a year for transphobia'.
Banners saying 'Stock Out' have been held alongside burning flares and scores of people have been criticising her under the Twitter hashtag #ShameOnSussexUni – although many others have been using it to support her.
Now, Ms Stock has spoken out, telling her 46,000 Twitter followers: 'If you work where I do, and you know what's happening to me at the moment (which I'll discuss at later date), this is the time to say something about it. Not for me, but for you. What kind of future does a university have where intimidation determines what is said or taught?'
The group leading the protests against her is an anonymous collective called 'Anti Terf Sussex', which describes itself as an 'unaffiliated network of queer and trans students'. 'Terf' means a 'trans-exclusionary radical feminist'.
It was the term levelled at JK Rowling over her response to an article about 'people who menstruate'. The author had tweeted last year: 'I'm sure there used to be a word for those people', suggesting that word was 'women'.
But this week, the University of Sussex has stood by Ms Stock, saying it was 'extremely concerned' by the 'harassment' she had suffered and confirmed the posters had been removed.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
From googling, she seems to be a bit of a yahoo who would make Trump proud, but IMHO she is entitled to her opinion and the right to voice it; and, according to the news reports, the university is defending this (and rightfully so). If she has done anything at the university to squelch or marginalize opposite opinions, I might well change my mind, but open debate of opinions and ideas is one of the highest goals of a university.
That being said, I would hope her opinions on these issues would become the focus of her classes, and that she would diligently teach the subject matter, like classical philosophers) without thrusting her opinions on the students; that's why the university hired her. She can write ant speak about whatever she wants outside the classroom, perhaps even lead a seminar on an alternative view of trans issues, but she needs to do her job as well. I recall having professors from parts of the political spectrum from the extreme right to the extreme left, but they still did their jobs
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
But why would a philosophy professor focus efforts on sexual identification? That sounds more like the realms of psychology or sociology, perhaps anthropology. She may be a respected person in philosophy circles for her contributions to that subject, but I doubt her views on sexual identity are well cited or respected. Even an intelligent person can be a jerk on some subjects.
I'd disagree. While there are psychological and sociological aspects to sexual identity, philosophy, especially in its existential form, can also contribute to the debate
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
But Sue, do you think a course like this, where the objective is to answer a number of questions "correctly" honestly teaches anything. There are a lot of ways to teach an understanding of different perspectives, but they all involve a significant amount of discussion of the issues. Providing the answers they want to a series of questions teaches nothing (except, maybe, how to deal with this sort of course in the workplace).
Of course it teaches something! It teaches unquestioning obedience, and it teaches that WRONGTHINK will not be tolerated!
To me, the term "White Privilege" seems to be just another name for "Class Privilege" but it's being used now in order to let white people know that any white person who is successful didn't have to work as hard as another race to achieve what they've achieved.
That and similar terms, e.g. 'Black Lives Matter' and 'Defund the Police' - tend to trigger negativity when blurted out by protestors and/or all of the many 'influencers' on twatter and farcebook. The reason they cause negativity is because these terms are ambiguous.
Everybody seems to have their own definition. If anyone wants to accuse me of having "White Privilege", they need to give me an example of when it applied to me. Better yet, they should just keep their silly "woke" opinions to themselves, hop on their Peletons and stare at a monitor and carry on with their pretend exercises in their I'm a Victim world.
Yes, Joe. I've had similar thoughts regarding "class" privilege and some others.
Privilege is not always about what "we" gain but what we don't experience at all. Being in a certain position or gender, of a certain race or color, we are not always aware of our "gain" because we think (consciously or not) that our life-conditions are the "natural" order of things. We are not the outliers.
But I can see lots of privilege involved in things that (to me) are not even noticeable - they simply don't happen because I'm . . . white, male, wealthy (comparatively), secure, etc. And even if some do happen, I don't experience them happening because I'm white, etc., at least not in a white-dominated society.
I don't experience:
people thinking, saying and acting as if my clothes are inferior because I'm white;
my achievements are extraordinary for people of my kind;
people following and harassing me in public because I'm white and so on(*).
*this one is VERY place-specific
Part of class privilege is the assumption that white, male, landed people are in themselves superior as humans because of their position/possessions/power. It's not having more "stuff" (viz. aristocratic rejection of crass money-making manufacturers), though stuff is essential for class success to avoid deplorable failure. Position includes birth, occupation, and "kind". Those who are not "one of us" are "one of them" and therefore of less value automatically, even if we don't actively think of "them" that way.
As cutely radical as Julian Fellows is, the folks at Downton Abbey know in their bones that the masses are of less account, therefore the duty of the well-awf is to "lift them" a bit and say "by jove, he did well . . . a credit to his . . .".
And the servants know that they are themselves superior to the servants of lesser lords (and ladies) while inferior to the servants of the higher-ups. As to farm workers, my dear they are beyond class. The difference is that the servants know the reason is not one of achievement but of position alone.
And that position is male, white, very much not-poor, and so on. White privilege is a condition in which I comfortably assume (not even 'expect') that my children will be well-educated, well-protected by society, have decent housing, clothing, jobs, representation in the media, in politics and on and on. Class privilege we can call it - these days, the class has more kinds of people in it than it once did. But it takes the form of admittance to what class WAS.
Terry Pratchett wrote something to the effect that when people talk of assimilation, it's always in one direction - so that everyone becomes "like me". It's never me becoming like "one of them".
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Kathleen Stock, the philosophy professor at the centre of a row over her views on gender identification and transgender rights, has announced her resignation from the University of Sussex.
Stock’s resignation comes three weeks after a protest by some students at the university’s Brighton campus, which included posters and graffiti calling for her dismissal.
She has said she believes gender identity does not outweigh biological sex “when it comes to law and policy”, and that people cannot change their biological sex.
In an email to staff, Adam Tickell, Sussex’s vice-chancellor, said: “We had hoped that Prof Stock would feel able to return to work, and we would have supported her to do so.
“She has decided that recent events have meant that this will not be possible, and we respect and understand that decision. We will miss her many contributions, from which the university has benefited during her time here.”
Stock tweeted that she was sad to leave: “This has been a very difficult few years, but the leadership’s approach more recently has been admirable and decent. I hope that other institutions in similar situations can learn from this.”
She added: “This has been an absolutely horrible time for me and my family. I’m putting it behind me now. On to brighter things soon, I hope.”
A university spokesperson said: “Over the past several weeks, the University of Sussex has vigorously and unequivocally defended Prof Kathleen Stock’s right to exercise her academic freedom and lawful freedom of speech, free from bullying and harassment of any kind.
“These freedoms and protections apply to and benefit us all, and we will defend them today and in the future. Rather than conflicting with our progress on equality, diversity and inclusion, these freedoms and protections are in place to support those with protected characteristics, particularly those who are under-represented or disadvantaged.
“Universities must remain places where everyone – staff or student – has the right to, and benefits from, lawful freedom of speech.
“The university has been consistent and clear that everyone in our community has the right to work and learn, free from bullying and harassment of any kind, which has not been the case for Prof Stock.
“There were no substantive allegations of wrongdoing made against her. Prof Stock leaves the University of Sussex with our gratitude for her significant contributions as a teacher and academic. Prof Stock’s successes in the field of philosophy have been of great benefit to the university. Her departure is a loss.”
Michelle Donelan, the universities minister for England, said: “It is absolutely appalling that the toxic environment at the University of Sussex has made it untenable for Prof Kathleen Stock to continue in her position there. No academic should ever have to fear for their personal safety.”
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
So "a protest by some students at the university’s Brighton campus, which included posters and graffiti calling for her dismissal" were all it took for her to resign? Sounds like someone is trying to make herself out to be a martyr whose ideas about freedom of speech only go one way - she believes she has the right to express any idea she wants, and in return she should be immune from any criticism.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."
Yeah, bullying, harassment and a toxic workplace are all just fine as long as the fascistic wokes are happy.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Just imagine if there'd been "posters and graffiti calling for her dismissal" due to her supporting Trans rights...
I'm sure that would be just fine too...
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
If she resigned over it, it would have been of her own choice, just as it is now. Did these "posters and graffiti" impede her in any way from doing her job? Were her classes disrupted? Was her office taken over by a sit in? Was she harassed in any way as she moved about campus? No? Then what it comes down to, is that she is every bit as intolerant of opposing viewpoints as she claims others to be. And like all trans-hating bigots, she has become an expert at playing the victim.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."
I've not weighed in on this: but I am a graduate of the University of Sussex and I have walked through that tunnel to the railway station (Gob's post from October 8) hundreds of times.
When I was there ('67 to '70) Sussex had a well deserved reputation for having the most left wing student body in the country. A few months before I arrived students had thrown red paint on the American ambassador as a protest against the nascent Vietnam War. The faculty were pretty aligned with the students (I'll give three examples: Sussex was the first University in the country to have student representatives on the Senate governing body - and I was one of four in the second year of that representation; one of my chemistry lecturers decided to give up research for two years in order to concentrate on his undergrad teaching responsibilities, and when I reminded him of that on the occasion of his Nobel Prize, Harry Kroto said "Thank you for reminding me of a time I did my job properly!"; and ex-Communist (and old Etonian) John Maynard Smith headed the biological sciences department) but there was definitely and unsurprisingly a spectrum of views among students and faculty.
If the quote above - "She has said she believes gender identity does not outweigh biological sex “when it comes to law and policy”, and that people cannot change their biological sex." - is an accurate summary of her views then she is obviously wrong twice in one sentence. I'm sure there is a lot more she has to say: she is after all a professor of philosophy and "an expert in gender and sexual orientation" whatever the heck that means. Clearly people can change their biological sex - there are operations and hormone treatments available and they are common enough and you have probably met people who have undergone either or both. I know I have, several times that I know of and countless times that I do not know of. How do you know that that barkeep or sales manager or lawn mower operator started off life the sex you assume him/her/them to be? And 'law and policy' should have nothing to say on sex - speed limits and tax payments and employment practices and whether you are allowed to burn leaves in your back yard should be irrespective of gender whether the same as assigned at birth or not. So if she's an expert she's pretty fucking stupid. If my chemistry prof told me that CH3- was ethyl and C2H5- was methyl and that CN- was non-toxic I'd want him/her/them fired, or to seek medical treatment.
) .) I don't read the Telegraph but judging from this article, XKA's description above seems spot on.
