Excerpted from Whitey Don’t see that: The rising recognition of ‘white privilege’ in Western academia (PDF) by Momoko Price at The Ubyssey, November 2006:
Laurence Berg, Canada Research Chair for Human Rights, Diversity and Identity, disagrees with the
idea that PC language and policies are oppressive. Why? Because he doesn’t really believe that PC policies existed in the first place.“What [they]’re calling the ‘PC movement’ I would call a social movement by marginalised people and the people who support them,” he said. “[A movement] to use language that’s more correct—not ‘politically correct’—that more accurately represents reality.”
Berg is referring to a way of thinking that many of us students were too young to catch the first time around. For us, the term ‘politically correct’ survived the 90s, but the term ‘human rights backlash’ did not. Will Hutton, former editor-in-chief for the UK publication the Observer, described in his column how the term ‘PC’ was never really a political stance at all, contrary to popular belief. It was actually perceived by many as a right-wing tactic to dismiss—or backlash against—left-leaning social change. Mock the trivial aspects of human rights politics, like its changing language, and you’ll succeed in obscuring the issue altogether.
Berg believes this is what political correctness is all about: “The term politically correct is a reactionary term,” he said. “[It was] created by people who were worried by [social] changes…that affected their everyday understanding of the world in ways that pointed out their role in creating or reproducing dominance and subordination.”
According to Berg, the indignation people feel against PC ideas reflects the discomfort we feel when language and politics begin to pull away from the dominant values we grew up with—in other words, white, middle-class values. It’s no small coincidence that the concept of political correctness originated in the 80s and 90s, just after human rights concerns and visible minority groups started getting real attention in politics and the media.
Berg explains that in its original context, PC was a pejorative term used by people who felt they were losing something. Exactly what they were losing is very hard to describe, especially to them. But many sociologists and historians today have come to a consensus on what they call it: it’s a loss of privilege—and in terms of race, a loss of white privilege.
Related post:
UPDATE: In the comments, DaisyDeadhead points out that the term “political correctness” was in use during the 70s by the political left. Berg is wrong, as Kai, Daisy, and Wikipedia cite its pre-1990s and leftist origins in China.
Restructure! 
August 25, 2009 at 10:45 am
It’s part of derailing for dummies, it seems.
August 25, 2009 at 1:31 pm
I wrote something similar earlier today in response to an article about Caster Semenya. The only people who complain about the PC brigade are those in power. Ever notice how they can never say anything good about the concept?
August 25, 2009 at 5:06 pm
I think the anti-PC brigade is on firm ground when they criticize the censorious nature of Political Correctness, especially at the university level which is supposed to be the arena for free exchange of ideas. Attempts by the Politically Correct, who are often the ones in positions of power within the academy, to silence dissent is now so well documented.
just recently, Bucknell U attempted to punish conservative students who distributed fake dollar bills in protest of the federal stimulus, featuring an image of President Obama, as well as shut down their “affirmative action bake sale,” designed to protest affirmative action by charging different prices based on ethnicity. Leftists have also tried to fire John Yoo at Berkeley for holding un-PC views on torture. PC NYU students have attempted to prevent Dr. Li-ann Thio from teaching, because of her views on homosexuality.
August 26, 2009 at 2:18 am
Manju, that’s a great point and something we as alleged liberals don’t like to consider. But surely we have extremists in all spheres of life yes, even among liberals?
August 26, 2009 at 11:45 am
“But surely we have extremists in all spheres of life”
can’t argue with that, Joy-Mari. Liberty University (the one that banned interracial dating as well as the democratic club) comes to mind as an example of right wing political correctness.
but probably the best example was the ill-fated alliance between radical feminists and christian conservatives in order to ban pornography, which hilariously resulted in, if memory serves me correct, a book by andrea dworkin herself getting censored in canada under the very law she helped craft. heh.
August 26, 2009 at 5:58 pm
correction, the banning interracial dating college was bob jones u. liberty u is the falwell operation that banned the democratic club.
neither university makes any pretense about respecting liberal freedoms anyway, so they’re pretty insignificant, but its worth noting such close-mindedness exists on all sides of the debate.
August 26, 2009 at 6:13 pm
I just don’t understand how the myth of meritocracy can hold up despite all the evidence to the contrary.
For example, in job-seeking, networking (a soft term for nepotism) is so normalized. It’s basically affirmative action for whites.
A simple way to fix this is to make all job openings publicized instead of behind the scenes, but we as a society won’t even do just that. So 80% of jobs remain unadvertised. What gives?
August 27, 2009 at 5:11 am
Thank you for this post. I find it extremely necessary to read and appreciate the conversation it sparked.
August 27, 2009 at 6:09 pm
“[A movement] to use language that’s more correct—not ‘politically correct’—that more accurately represents reality.”
This.
Furthermore, I find that when people can’t argue on an competitive, equal level, they’re go for silencing tactics and employ double standards. The PC thing is just done in a wider scale.
Isn’t it ironic, though? Whites are always trying to dictate the ‘reality’ for non-whites, and yet when they’re served reality on a cold platter back to them, they just want you to stop talking. It’s hilarious.
August 28, 2009 at 5:58 am
It is hilarious, especially when talking about the political correctness re: multiple forms of bigotry–for those of us struggle with more than one form of social marginalization then have to ‘allow’ the reality that they suffer too be okay, because they care. Much like the ‘homosexual panic’ had been used to justify crimes, some whites give in to ‘racism panic’ to victimize how they’re being called out.
August 28, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Isn’t it ironic, though? Whites are always trying to dictate the ‘reality’ for non-whites, and yet when they’re served reality on a cold platter back to them, they just want you to stop talking. It’s hilarious.
Yes. That’s ultimately what the very idea of “political correctness” is really about: the dominant (White) society attempting to dictate the terms of political reality itself.
By and large, the phrase “political correctness” is used as a propaganda weapon to dismiss any political perspective that challenges this hegemonic White “reality.”
It goes beyond the correct use of language as
Laurence Berg asserts. It is about a broader clash of political worldviews–dominant vs. subordinate.
In short, the whole PC debate is one more skirmish in what has been called the Culture Wars.
August 28, 2009 at 11:39 pm
Yeah, and it can be boiled down to one question.
When a POC says something that’s correct, why can’t it be simply… correct?
Why is it necessarily ‘politically’ correct?
That implies that it’s supported by a consensus of some sort, and is just a mere opinion.
But what if it’s factually correct?
When white people are factually correct, they’re simply correct.
POC lack that privilege.
August 29, 2009 at 9:45 am
i think the author makes a great point. i and others have made a similar observation about the made-up term “misandry” — that its a reactionary term against the loss of male privilege, and a euphemism for feminism. its striking, isnt it, that power-grabbing and reclaiming behaviors are triggered whenever privilege is challenged, and that the power-grabbing often takes the form specifically of creating made-up words?
privileged males have historically held power over the rest of us through language, including of course the written word and literacy, but also the making of language itself. they have historically chosen how certain issues are framed, by the way they are referred to, by words. referring to sexual intercourse as the man “penetrating” instead of the woman “enveloping” for example. language and the making of it is fascinating.
here are links to my article about “misandry” and to my blog.
http://factcheckme.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/no-such-thing-as-misandry/
http://factcheckme.wordpress.com/
August 29, 2009 at 10:07 am
Manju,
Shutting down the Affirmative Action Bake Sale is correct (not politically correct), because the message it is spreading is incorrect (not politically incorrect). Affirmative Action doesn’t work like that.
You cannot separate the issue of truth from politics. Just like banning creationism (or alchemy or phrenology or astrology) from science class is about truth rather than “political correctness”/censorship, shutting down Affirmative Action Bake Sales is about truth rather than “political correctness”/censorship.
August 29, 2009 at 10:18 am
factcheckme,
So true. Usually, who most men refer to as “feminists” are not actually self-identified feminists. What most men refer to as “feminists” are: career women, female engineers, women on birth control, etc.
The career woman, female engineer, or woman on birth control can be completely apolitical, but many men consider them “feminists” merely because they are benefitting from women’s lib.
August 29, 2009 at 10:30 am
“The career woman, female engineer, or woman on birth control can be completely apolitical, but many men consider them “feminists” merely because they are benefitting from women’s lib. ”
Do people within a (sub)group that benefit from the work of their predecessors without necessarily continuing the work themselves have unearned privilege, or is it earned? (I think I twittered to you about earned privilege for groups, and what that means.)
August 29, 2009 at 11:00 am
Alston Adams,
It is unearned, but I would not use that twisted terminology, calling men’s loss of privilege as women’s “unearned privilege”.
Relative to whom do women have gender “privilege”? Relative to women in the past? It does not make sense to calibrate privilege based on the standards of the past, which favours the oppressors.
August 29, 2009 at 11:15 am
Actually, I hadn’t considered thinking of a power group’s loss of privilege as someone else’s (un)earned privilege.
What I was thinking about was how some might say that their white ancestors worked diligently so that they, as whites, could dominate as part of their birthright. Someone that is “politically correct” is challenging their birthright. However, if we talk about unearned privilege in a power group, I was wondering how they would derail this by comparing a woman benefitting from affirmative action (for example) made by the struggles of their foremothers as being unearned privilege. I guess I am struggling with what is considered earned and what isn’t.
August 29, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Alston,
White privilege and male privilege are always unearned. But minorities don’t gain white privilege throughout time, and women don’t gain male privilege throughout time. What minorities and women gain are civil rights.
The right to be treated as an equal should not be something that you have to “earn”.
August 29, 2009 at 12:13 pm
[…] more broadly, those who have traditionally benefitted from it coined the new, made-up term “politically correct” to undermine and denigrate those doing the questioning. the intellectual dishonesty is […]
August 29, 2009 at 12:49 pm
[…] why describing something as “politically correct” squicks me out, and is duplicitous. Restructure helps. Love that blog. “What [they]’re calling the ‘PC movement’ I would call a social movement by […]
August 29, 2009 at 10:48 pm
“Shutting down the Affirmative Action Bake Sale is correct (not politically correct), because the message it is spreading is incorrect (not politically incorrect). Affirmative Action doesn’t work like that”
Well, there you go. If the PC only want to allow for speech they deem truthful, how can they complain when they are criticized for being an authoritarian and ultimately oppressive movement? True liberation movements allow for dissent.
August 30, 2009 at 10:01 am
Manju,
What if a group of Buckell U students held up a bunch of protest signs saying “Blacks and Latinos do not belong at Bucknell U”? If the university shut them down, would you say that it is PC/censorship/authoritarian/oppressive to whites?
August 30, 2009 at 11:38 am
Restructure!:
I’d allow the speech. its certainly constitutionally protected and private universities should allow for as much freedom as possible.
One of the dangers in banning this speech, and I think your response is an implicit example of this, is the slippery slope. You’re shifting the debate from an actual case to an imaginary one that contains speech more clearly racist, in hopes that setting that precedent will justify restricitng the speech of those who hold (arguably) non-racist positions that you don’t like, albeit you don’t like them b/c you consider them racist.
But once you allow authorities such power there’s no guarantee that they won’t come after you or people on your side who hold beliefs other’s construe as racist. Banning Margaret Sanger’s works for example could be justified because her defense of abortion rights was partially motivated by anti-black racism. After all, didn’t Andrea Dworkin get bitten by her own snake?
August 30, 2009 at 1:11 pm
But private universities do not have uphold the 1st Amendment; it is not part of the government.
So what if it was a public university? I don’t know. (But there is something that bothers me about the Affirmative Action Bake Sale, having to do with it being an unsupported reactionary opinion and infringing on the rights of part of the student body. If they actually had an argument OR it wasn’t about protesting the right of other students to be enrolled, then it would not be harmful and perpetually unproductive.) However, this was a private university, so my hypotheticals apply only to an imaginary case, not the actual one. In the actual case, no constitutional rights were violated.
I don’t really care about Dworkin.
August 30, 2009 at 2:35 pm
The privilege comments between restructure! and alston adams are intriguing in that privilege can be read as power in the conversation and that, alston appears to be suggesting that it can’t be shared.
As for free speech @ universities–if we censored the speech of those who were repressive then, how would those needing to disrupt it be able to speak? It is difficult, because then it also presumes that bigotry cannot be in the formation of hostile work environments and, having recently escaped one full of individuals who discuss these issues extensively, trying to avoid being pc, at times the we way policed each other’s speech was a form of consenting to ignorance and political correctness.
August 30, 2009 at 2:48 pm
“But private universities do not have uphold the 1st Amendment; it is not part of the government.”
right. bucknell has the right to limit academic freedom if it wants, after all nutty right wing universities like liberty U (Falwell’s operation) and bob jones (the banning interracial dating place) do it, but i’m arguing they shouldn’t…we don’t want to seegreat institutions of higher learning reduced to left-wings version of bob jones.
“If they actually had an argument OR it wasn’t about protesting the right of other students to be enrolled, then it would not be harmful and perpetually unproductive”
they have an argument: having different standards for different ethnic groups is wrong.
August 31, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Restructure: you write:
“Shutting down the Affirmative Action Bake Sale is correct (not politically correct), because the message it is spreading is incorrect (not politically incorrect). Affirmative Action doesn’t work like that. ”
You know, the affirmative action bake sale really bothered me a lot too. And part of the reason for that is that white women have been the major beneficiaries of affirmative action. This bake sale totally overlooks that FACT.
The other part that bothers me is that the affirmative action bake sale assumes that the price is based on ethnicity, while affirmative action is actually based on the actions of whiteness that prevent all ethnicities from equal access to quality education in primary and secondary school, as well as equal access to job opportunities.
Another point that this bake sale leaves out, (equally important) is that there are also alumnai spots available for children in many colleges/universities, wouldn’t that be a preferred price for white people, who have had the opportunity to gain access to higher learning institutions for a much longer period of time?
I love, love, love this post of yours, and I feel that I have learned a lot from the comments too. Thank you, as always, for your thought provoking and challenging posts.
I think I would also take issue with students making fake copies of the US dollar, I always thought that was illegal, and also, not having seen these fake dollars, I would also wonder if they didnt feature the offensive minstrel pictures of President Obama that are showing up everywhere, I just tried to scratch one of these off a public wall, they are like glue!
August 31, 2009 at 5:20 pm
@kathy
I agree. The bake sale doesn’t educate, it reframes and derails. There’s a difference.
August 31, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Manju: “True liberation movements allow for dissent.”
True dissent can only be dissent that is founded on things that are true — i.e. it must have a factual basis vs. merely an emotional one. Anything else is not dissent.
The bake sales are no where near something worthy of calling dissent. It’s demogaguery. There is a well defined difference.
It’s also not dissent because…
all you have in a situation where the majority figures it will be willfully dishonest in order to maintain the authoritarian and oppressive status quo.
Your own choice of words cement that. The opposite of liberation is slavery. So, the supposed “dissent” against said liberation represents the same historically oppressive force in society. The “dissenters” can claim their freedom (to oppress or maintain the racist status quo) is being infringed upon ’til the cows come home but people who fight for the “liberation” of the historically oppressed/marginalized have no obligation to honor the word games, twisted/tortured logic and other assorted bs of make-shift, crackpot “dissenters.” Demogagues by any other name.
August 31, 2009 at 8:01 pm
kathy,
Recently, I tried to Google information about Affirmative Action for white women, and I couldn’t find any info about it. Do you know of links explaining this?
August 31, 2009 at 8:56 pm
here is a start.here is a start.
August 31, 2009 at 9:06 pm
According to the United States Labor Department, the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action are white women (“Reverse Discrimination,” 1995). The Department of Labor estimated that 6 million women workers are in higher occupational classifications today than they would have been without affirmative action policies.
August 31, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Thanks, kathy.
I remember that stuff white people do post about Affirmative Action for white women and Macon D saying, “John McCain clearly selected Sarah Palin instead of other, more qualified candidates largely because she’s a woman” (suggesting that Palin’s selection was Affirmative Action). I didn’t understand how stupid Palin was (or it hadn’t been revealed back then, at least to my knowledge), but he made it seem like unqualified women were being hired through Affirmative Action, instead of Affirmative Action for women being things like breast cancer screenings and women-only domestic violence shelters. I still don’t think Palin’s selection had anything to do with Affirmative Action (since conservatives tend to select stupid pretty women to represent them, while liberals do not).
September 1, 2009 at 6:51 am
The Palin case…a ‘card’ used when McCain was calling Pres. Obama for using the race card. The argument re: white women, something tackled by womanist theory for decades, is a complex one especially considering the notion of class. It’s a continuous debate because of the strategic ways that white women affirmative action is used to trump equality and yet maintain white supremacy. Some white women, believe overcoming their struggles is liberation for all, which is what can be disheartening when they refuse to engage with us. Something Audre Lorde touches on extensively in her work, my favorite being “The Uses of Anger.”
September 1, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Macon D wrote:“John McCain clearly selected Sarah Palin instead of other, more qualified candidates largely because she’s a woman”
Perhaps Macon D didn’t intend to frame Sara Palin as an affirmative action candidate because she was unqualified, but that is the way that I read his statement. There were other women who McCain could have chosen, I actually believe that part of the reason that the Republicans chose Palin was to increase interest from the right wingnut base, including white supremacists, in order to widen McCain’s base support.
Also, affirmative action isn’t about a less qualified candidate, it’s about a selection based on evening the playing field, two candidates can be equally qualified under affirmative action, but a preference would be extended to an under-represented candidate or a candidate who experienced more obstacles to get to the same place.
Affirmative Action represents a selection process, where as a general election would not way in any of those factors.
President Obama won the election because the voting public believed he was the most qualified candidate. It wouldn’t even make sense to call a political contenter in a general election an Affirmative Action candidate. The factors for election versus selection are too divergent.
September 1, 2009 at 4:28 pm
“And part of the reason for that is that white women have been the major beneficiaries of affirmative action. This bake sale totally overlooks that FACT.”
This isn’t accurate. According to wiki, the bake sales take white women into account: “A typical pricing structure charges $1.00 for White and Asian males, $.75 for White and Asian females…”
“The other part that bothers me is that the affirmative action bake sale assumes that the price is based on ethnicity, while affirmative action is actually based on the actions of whiteness that prevent all ethnicities from equal access to quality education in primary and secondary school, as well as equal access to job opportunities.”
Its not mutually exclusive. AA is based on ethnicity (and gender) but justified on the basis of past and present discrimination. The bake sale is a parody of the means, not the justification.
“Another point that this bake sale leaves out, (equally important) is that there are also alumnai spots available for children in many colleges/universities, wouldn’t that be a preferred price for white people, who have had the opportunity to gain access to higher learning institutions for a much longer period of time? ”
That a fair and common criticism of the anti-aa position, but that’s not a justification for censorship. pro–aa students are free to bring that point up as a a counter, or to hold their own legacy bake sales.
after all, whats preventing the university from then shutting down Israeli divestment rallies on campus on the basis that these rallies don’t criticize other regimes, like say pakistan or Saudi Arabia, who practice their own form of religious apartheid. a lot of protest are selective and therefore vulnerable to your criticism.
“I think I would also take issue with students making fake copies of the US dollar, I always thought that was illegal, and also, not having seen these fake dollars, I would also wonder if they didnt feature the offensive minstrel pictures of President Obama that are showing up everywhere, I just tried to scratch one of these off a public wall, they are like glue!”
The dollar bills weren’t counterfeits, but rather obvious fakes and no minstrel pictures were used. The university simply wanted to shut down conservative dissent.
September 1, 2009 at 4:33 pm
“True dissent can only be dissent that is founded on things that are true — i.e. it must have a factual basis vs. merely an emotional one. Anything else is not dissent.”
This is circular. You want to only allow for only true dissent but since the university gets to decide what is true, obviously no dissent will be allowed.
“all you have in a situation where the majority figures it will be willfully dishonest in order to maintain the authoritarian and oppressive status quo.”
This is problematic. the pro-aa postion is actually the statius-quo, or there would be no piont to the bake sale. it unclear how the anti-aa floks cositute the majority if aa is the law of the land and, more importantly, they are not the ones in power.
September 1, 2009 at 6:25 pm
“This isn’t accurate. According to wiki, the bake sales take white women into account: “A typical pricing structure charges $1.00 for White and Asian males, $.75 for White and Asian females…””
How would this pricing system be accurate, first it puts White males and Asian males on the same playing field, then places White and Asian females on the the same playing field, and does NOT represent the primary beneficiary as white women.
“Its not mutually exclusive. AA is based on ethnicity (and gender) but justified on the basis of past and present discrimination. The bake sale is a parody of the means, not the justification.”
Wouldn’t the purpose of a parody be instructive and based on facts, this bake sale seems to make Affirmative Action into a joke, a demeaning little bake sale, rather than illuminate the selection process of Affirmative Action.
“That a fair and common criticism of the anti-aa position, but that’s not a justification for censorship. pro–aa students are free to bring that point up as a a counter, or to hold their own legacy bake sales.”
If the criticism is fair and factual, then it points to the fallacy of the concept of this bake sale. Why should other students have to counter a truth, why would you place the weight of a false argument on other people to counter? Saying that other students can have their own “legacy sales” would still not change the facts, and would actually seem to diminish truthfulness by simply saying that other students are free to say what they want.
I am curious by your use of “legacy”. What do you mean by that term?
September 1, 2009 at 7:02 pm
I wrote the above post, sorry, my name didn’t come out.
September 1, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Manju,
I didn’t reply to some of your questions because I think that tends to derail the issue we are talking about.
September 1, 2009 at 9:51 pm
“How would this pricing system be accurate, first it puts White males and Asian males on the same playing field, then places White and Asian females on the the same playing field, and does NOT represent the primary beneficiary as white women”
White women are the primary beneficiaries as a group but not as individuals. So while preferences have benefited white women the most because they are the largest group, the individual white women actually gets less preference than individuals of other preferred groups, except asian women. The pricing reflects what the individual applicant (or cake buyer) receives based on his or her ethnicity and gender.
“Wouldn’t the purpose of a parody be instructive and based on facts, this bake sale seems to make Affirmative Action into a joke, a demeaning little bake sale, rather than illuminate the selection process of Affirmative Action.”
Look, Tina Fey and SNL parodies Sarah Palin. They make fun of her. Republicans, Christians, women, evangelicals, working class people, Alaskans, etc are all offended at various times. But they can’t ask the US govt to shut down SNL b/c Fey’s parody is inaccurate. Of course its inaccurate. its a parody, an exaggeration. Fey takes some artisitc license to make her larger point: palin’s an idiot. The US govt understands this type artistic expression is central to political process, thus protects it under the first amendment right to free speech. Universities dedicated to the pursuit of truth thru a free and open debate should respect this artistic freedom too. Otherwise we risk becoming the University of Havana.
“If the criticism is fair and factual, then it points to the fallacy of the concept of this bake sale. Why should other students have to counter a truth, why would you place the weight of a false argument on other people to counter”
Because what it means to live in a free society is that YOU have the right to free speech. So its your responsibility to speak. You can choose not to of course but you can’t force your political opponents to make your points for you, or shut them doen if they don’t. Thats what it means to live in an oppressive society, where religious, ethnic and political minorities are jailed or worse.
“I am curious by your use of “legacy”. What do you mean by that term?”
Legacy refers to the practice of giving preference to the children of alumni.
September 1, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Manju said: This is circular. You want to only allow for only true dissent but since the university gets to decide what is true, obviously no dissent will be allowed.
BS. This has little if anything to do with the university. My response addresses your lackluster response to Restructure who said:
“Shutting down the Affirmative Action Bake Sale is correct (not politically correct), because the message it is spreading is incorrect (not politically incorrect). Affirmative Action doesn’t work like that. ”
The way affirmative action works is not contingent on some convenient definition established by the university. Don’t bother responding to my posts if this is the best you can do.
Again, there is a marked difference between dissent and demagoguery which is the textbook definition for opposition to a position or policy based “popular prejudices and false claims.” You know, like the “Birthers” or the “Deathers.” But maybe you call conspiracy theories and all such demagogery “dissent” for whatever self-serving reason.
Manju said: “This is problematic. the pro-aa postion is actually the statius-quo…”
The only problem is your original statement was broader than the question of the university and the bake sales:
“If the PC only want to allow for speech they deem truthful, how can they complain when they are criticized for being an authoritarian and ultimately oppressive movement? True liberation movements allow for dissent.
Your original comment was about the “movement” and you went on to talk about “true liberation movements” which suggests that affirmative action isn’t the only part of the movement AND I have no idea how figure the pro-AA forces are the “status quo” when you aim was to pompously pontificate, concern troll style, about the way “true liberation movements” operate.
Note to Manju: people or movements seeking “liberation”, by definition, can’t be the established order, the Powers That Be or said “status quo.”
Your implicit request to decontextualize this issue is not granted. Make up your mind who you’re going to position as the dissenting freedom fighters — i.e. the anti-AA, traditional White (or off-White) backlash bake salers (who you essentially framed as the “oppressed”) or those people like Restructure, e.g., and/or those who support people like Restructure (so-called People of Color; aka as “minorities”; aka NOT the “status quo”)… people you want to give “liberation movement” guidance to, again, in full-blown concern troll mode.
September 1, 2009 at 10:30 pm
“Again, there is a marked difference between dissent and demagoguery which is the textbook definition for opposition to a position or policy based “popular prejudices and false claims.” You know, like the “Birthers” or the “Deathers.””
The bake sales aren’t demagoguery in the sense that various conspiracy theories are: holocaust denial. birthers, israel/bush caused 911, etc. They’re parodies, ie guerrilla theatre. They may be inaccurate to one degree or anther, but so is this post by Restructure. But neither this post not the bake sales raise to the level of paranoia or factually inaccuracy that consiracy theories do.
And even if they did, i’d allow them. after all, you don’t see Oliver north’s JFK film banned from campus. What if the paranid idiot turns out to be right?
“The way affirmative action works is not contingent on some convenient definition established by the university. Don’t bother responding to my posts if this is the best you can do.”
You lost me. AA is in fact contingent on how the institution in question decides to define it. They establish and run the programs after all.
“The only problem is your original statement was broader than the question of the university and the bake sales:”
Right. I criticized the censorious nature of the PC movement and offered up examples including but not limited to the bake sale. We shouldn’t focus just on bake sales since the censors don’t want to stop there.
“Note to Manju: people or movements seeking “liberation”, by definition, can’t be the established order, the Powers That Be or said “status quo.””
This is argument by definition. Just because the North Koreans call themselves the Democratic People’s Republic doesn’t mean they are. Sometimes liberation movements are anything but.
“Make up your mind who you’re going to position as the dissenting freedom fighters”
I won’t do this because power isn’t static. Obviously in the context of a university practicing AA and trying to shut down conservative voices, pro-aa forces are hardly oppressed…they are indeed representatives of the status quo.
I aslo reject the notion that the pro-aa contingent is synonymous with POC. Its is possible for POC to be oppressed and the PC movement to be simultaneously oppressive. think about it.
September 1, 2009 at 11:23 pm
A few points related to my last post (and please excuse the typos above)…
I noted how Manju positions the too busy trying to be cute to tell the truth bake salers as the “oppressed” via his comments about their “dissent” being stifled if the bake sales which are demonstrably loose with the truth. The natural question is: HOW? How are the bake salers oppressed?
Manju last post said: “Of course its inaccurate. its a parody, an exaggeration.
The problem is the bake sale reflects the actual positions of bake salers — i.e. the way anti-AA folks conceptualize AA in so-called serious, non-parody arguments is a mirror image of what the bake sale supposedly “exaggerates.”
Funny how White favoring enrollment restricting quotas used against Asian students (which has been a problem in recent history) aren’t a part of the routine. Neither are actual White (over Black) scholarships. I mean, when you have a website that dubs itself as “The White Man’s Guide to Getting a Minority Scholarship” there has to be some bake sale material there.
It’s also funny how all the gender balancing acts (along with White favoring Legacies, etc., etc….. ETC.) doesn’t come with cookie or brownie options.
The last point is instructive: it would seem that the biggest difference between dissent and demagoguery is how earnest, truthful… real dissent, perhaps necessarily, is based on principle (principle/principal disagreements) whereas demagoguery is based on some kind of self-serving agenda — principle, be it “meritocracy” or equality (let alone justice), need not apply.
September 1, 2009 at 11:46 pm
Your point? You’re the concern troll who introduced the concept. You attached “liberation (movement)” to pro-AA forces. Shadow box with yourself all you like. The fallacious argument is all yours.
Again, you have to decide who you’re claiming to be those who are fighting for “liberation.” When you assigned that goal/mission/motive to pro-AA people you set the definition, not me. I can’t help it that, by assigning/acknowledging the pro-AA forces the goal/aim of “LIBERATION”, you articulated a context that was at odds with your “status quo” argument.
That definition and conflict/contradiction is yours to reconcile, not mine.
Also, show me you can chew gum and walk at the same time. While I appreciate your attention to individual points, I most certainly will not allow you to skirt connected points or the actual (whole) point with a little snide remark about a part vs. the whole — i.e. where is your comment addressing the conflict between your “status quo” argument and your chosen “liberation” assignment/definition to the pro-AA forces?
BS. By your own “power is not static” comment, your request to decontextualize this issue is rejected, again. Before AA was ever fully established it was in the process of being torn down, watered down… rendered more anemic than it was at its birth and the demagoguery of the anti-AA forces have won battle after battle especially in recent years/decades.
Read: you also have another mess to clean up. Note how I said…
people like Restructure, e.g., and/or those who support people like Restructure
Don’t talk about possibilities and don’t ask me to do your thinking/argument-making for you. And while you’re making your argument yourself, please address the question of who is oppressed and how.
Also, explain why you would classify factually challenged conspiracy theories and/or demagoguery as “dissent.”
September 1, 2009 at 11:54 pm
“Funny how White favoring enrollment restricting quotas used against Asian students (which has been a problem in recent history) aren’t a part of the routine.”
This is inaccurate. The bake sales take into account how some AA schemes oppress Asians, as presented by the higher price Asians have to pay for the cookies than other groups.
Indeed, the bizarre reclassification of Asian Americans as non-minorities has long been a conservative criticism of PC thought, as the ideology rends to define POC by their oppression. I refer you to Dinesh D’Souza’s illiberal education for example, which begins with an example of an Asian American who is denied entry to Berkley despite having higher scores than whites and Hispanics in her high school.
Google Nikita Rau and you’ll see the right-wing NYPost championing her story: “A Brooklyn mother and father got the shock of their lives when school officials informed them their brilliant 11-year-old girl was denied admission to an elite public school – solely because she’s of Indian descent.”
Even the wiki entry on the bakes sales confirms this:
“Asians are generally not included in the minority-discount category in bake-sales because they do not benefit from affirmative action policies. For example, some schools have had restrictions on the proportion of Asian students admitted, in favor of lower scoring students of other racial groups. [3] African-American Dr. Walter E. Williams, a libertarian professor of economics at George Mason University further elaborates that:
“A minority group is not (counted as) a minority if, as a group, it is successful. Asian median family income is $55,525, the highest of any racial group in America. More than 44 percent of Asians age 25 and over have bachelor’s degrees; the rate for all other Americans was 26 percent. Other indicators of group success include low crime rate and high family stability.””
September 2, 2009 at 12:23 am
“Your point? You’re the concern troll who introduced the concept.”
This that we call the PC movement defines itself, even before i introduced the concept, as a liberation movement. Many people define themselves as liberators. Castro thought himself one and to a certain degree he was, overthrowing the oppressive batista regime. But then he turned around and enslaved his own people all over again. To the extent the PC regime engages in censorship I am indeed very concerned, both for myself and the world we live in, and to a lesser degree that he censorious nature of the regime may undermine its positive contributions.
“By your own “power is not static” comment, your request to decontextualize this issue is rejected, again. Before AA was ever fully established it was in the process of being torn down, watered down… rendered more anemic than it was at its birth and the demagoguery of the anti-AA forces have won battle after battle especially in recent years/decades.”
Look, liberals have won many battles against conservative christians in the courts as well, especially in regards to the establishment clause of the first amendment. but that doesn’t mean down in east Texas high school christians conservatives don’t still weild a lot of power, and can abuse it.
“Read: you also have another mess to clean up. Note how I said…
people like Restructure, e.g., and/or those who support people like Restructure”
In the very next line you mention “so-called People of Color; aka as “minorities”; aka NOT the “status quo”” so i reject the notion that you are synonymous with minorities or that your positons are the positions of POC or that they benefit POC because you say they do.
I’m not saying they don’t either, but true liberation movements make room for diversity. Many if not most POC are not PC. That should be acknowledged.
“Also, explain why you would classify factually challenged conspiracy theories and/or demagoguery as “dissent.” ”
This is irrelevant. The liberal university and liberal democracies do not make this distinction between the two, at least as a matter of law. Dissenters and Demagaougues both have equal free speech protection. Both are allowed.
September 2, 2009 at 12:29 am
You also don’t see anyone calling conspiracy theories (i.e. woefully inaccurate representations of reality) classified as “dissent” or viewpoints worth of consideration in honest, civil debate but, with power being something that is not static, again the actual chain of events in the real world show how the anti-AA forces, for all their inaccuracies, have considerable power (see the 5-4 Ricci decision rendered along partisan lines). Status quo your “guerrilla theatre” azz…
I didn’t lose you. You’re lost in the maze you created while trying to follow bread crumbs to whatever point you thought you were making. One quick counterpoint to your curious claim is the very role the SCOTUS plays in interpreting AA law/policy that originated NOT with universities but with other branch(es) of the federal government.
Regardless, it’s your burden of proof. Show how the AA bake sales reflected the policies of the university where the bake sales were held — i.e. articulate what the AA policy of the university was and how the bake sale “exaggerated” actual elements of the university’s policy vs. generalized anti-AA demagoguery to make a point-by-parody. I’m not aware of much, if any, variation in the way the bake sales on different campus are set up. Tell me how they differ, significantly, from place to place.
Among the first ones I Googled: Purdue and Bucknell (a private university which you referenced earlier) where the school’s stance was that the bake sale violated their anti-discrimination policy.
http://www.lafayette-online.com/purdue-news/2009/02/purdue-student-group-affirmative-action-bake-sale/
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/06/23/bucknell-and-the-affirmative-action-bakesale/
Also, from the obligatory files…
Please explain why, in the state of Michigan (amongst others), Native Americans receive tuition waivers and did so in the same state where the last major AA case to reach (what was that?) the SCOTUS which rendered a decision that impacted AA policy, you know like the very “definition” of AA, at universities.
http://www.itcmi.org/services/michigan-indian-tuition-waiver
I’m just trying to distinguish dissent from demagoguery.
September 2, 2009 at 1:03 am
“I’m just trying to distinguish dissent from demagoguery.”
1. Its irrelevant. demagoguery doesn’t trigger one of the free-speech exemptions: immanent danger (fire in a movie theatre), incitement to crime, establishment of religion, etc, so whatever distinction you’re making doesn’t alter the central claim: the PC regime is too censorious.
2. The censorship goes beyond bake sales. I cited 3 other examples, two of which involve POC being censored and I could go on. So getting caught up in the bake sale doesn’t address my central argument: PCness is dangerously authoritarian.
3. I find the bake sales a fair and accurate representation of various AA schemes, at least as far as parodys go. I certainly don’t see how they rise to the level of a conspiracy theories, like Israel is responsible for 911. That a made up lie and even then its allowed on campus despite its obvious anti-semitism. The worst you have said about bake sales is that they are incomplete in their criticism (fails to address other preferences like legacy) but that can be said about a lot of things, such as the israeli divestiture movements (which fails to address other regimes that practice apartheid like Saudi Arabia) but that hardly makes it the equivalent of holocaust denial, although I’m sure many jewsih students find it creepy.
September 2, 2009 at 1:29 am
Hardly. Not a single bake sale articulates Jian Li’s story of not being accepted for admission at Princeton while a white student who graduated from the same high school as Li with lower grades/scores was admitted.
The price scales at the bake sales don’t tell that story and when did Dinesh D’Souza become (what’s your word?) “synonymous” with anti-AA bake sales? The prevailing anti-AA frame never mentions White racial preferences. I can drop names and all kinds of links where anti-AA people frame the apparent admission problems Asian-Americans experience as a sort of zero-sum game where Asian-Americans are ‘cheated’ out of admissions ‘slots’ by other racial/ethnic minorities. A reference to that should be in one of the links I supplied.
As for your weird reference to Walter Williams… First he says:
Not a parody. Not an “exaggeration.” It’s “identical in principle.” I challenge you or Williams to make the actual argument establishing that as true — i.e. the principle/principal basis for the anti-AA other than White backlash and the problems of the contextually/logically challenged.
Williams also, in effect (or, perhaps, by default), makes the anti-AA bake sales = demagoguery argument I’ve made:
Note: Jennifer Gratz, the U of M undergrad plaintiff, never considered whether Asian-Americans were denied admissions when lower scoring Whites were admitted. Hell, she didn’t even care whether nearly twice as many lower scoring Whites were admitted before her or whether the de-facto White preferences in the old U of M points systems outnumbered the 20 points available for “underrepresented minorities” (see Tim Wise).
Likewise, the young Republican groups on these college campuses, by and large, DO NOT take a principled stance which is why there have been no anti-LEGACY bake sales, anti-wealth/privilege bake sales or anti-athletic scholarship bake sales by these Republican groups. It’s demagoguery, not dissent because there’s no principle involved in their opposition.
September 2, 2009 at 2:41 am
Your request to decontextualize the actual issue at hand, your desparate attempt to change the subject, is rejected. You tried to assert that liberals/pro-AA forces represent the “status quo” with regards to the AA issue — i.e. were were NOT talking about “many” or ANY battles in courts beside those related to AA. You’re obviously convinced that you can’t maintain your problematic, historical context-adversed claim about which side is the “status quo.”
Also, this isn’t solely left vs. right issue. Your “liberation movement” reference confirmed that and even with Barack Obama as the U.S., no legitimate argument can be made that African-Americans, e.g., as a group hold “status quo”, policy dictating power.
Your critique fails due to that kind of systematic blindness.
You’re the one who wanted to call bake sale type of anti-AA “dissent.” So it’s funny how you just want to drop that over some bs “free speech” exemption argument.
It’s clear you know the bake sale type of anti-AA rhetoric is so woefully inaccurate, so full of shit that you don’t even want to make that cockamamie “dissent” argument any more. It’s clear you know “dissent” requires more than just having azzholes… er… opinions.
The bake sale logic is a Glenn Beck’s style conspiracy theory. Nothing more. Nothing less. While Beck claims Obama’s policies are really an reparations plan that will take from Whites and give to Blacks, the bake sale type of anti-AA forces make the same implicit claim. As Restructure said, “Affirmative Action doesn’t work like that” — i.e. the business of college admissions involves too many factors for a price to be put on any one individuals cookie-tax rate. The bake salers have pattern White blindness and either don’t see or care when the “preferences” advantage Whites who have been historically advantaged and already have a built-in social advantage inherited from that not-so-distant (more) racist past.
Which brings me to the Tim Wise reference. By his calculation, in the old U of M points system, Whites could have received a combination of some 58 extra-pointscompared to the 20 points available for AA/minority candidates that had anti-AA people up in arms.
Only 18 of the 58 points constituted what counts for “academic merit.” 20 of the points were for economic disadvantage.
Beyond that the “dissent” and censorship things goes both ways. Claims by Ward Churchill, Boyce Watkins, etc… The opposition to multiculturalism/Afrocentrism… school boards wanting to remove non-white historical figures from the history books… etc., etc., etc.
In other words, your concern troll’s attempt to guilt trip “liberals” or whoever over so-called speech/dissent restricting “oppression” is little more than your own brand of self-serving, partisan demagoguery.
The right/CONservatives/etc. are pretty good at claiming they’re for free speech… freedom this, freedom that (see the school board link) but during the last U.S. presidential campaign, there were all kinds of “free speech” lovin’ CONservatives who insisted Rev. Jeremiah “goddamn America” Wright shouldn’t be allowed to speak, etc., etc., etc.
So this typical anti-liberal/anti-PC rhetoric of yours is as boring as it is transparently self-serving/partisan in nature.
September 2, 2009 at 3:08 am
And? Your point? The overwhelming majority of POC support affirmative action. So I stand on firm ground especially knowing the range of views POC with regards to AA. Some of those who oppose it also oppose bs bake sales and those who sympathize with the bake salers like Walter Williams are statistically insignificant. (There are more African-Americans who oppose AA and have no sympathy or ideological kinship with bake salers than those who side with the bake salers.)
Manju: so i reject the notion that you are synonymous with minorities or that your positons are the positions of POC
I am also not synonymous with Restructure (note: I never referred to myself up to and including how I felt about censoring bake sales).
Plus, in your original statement your “rejected” (like that means something) “the notion that the pro-aa contingent is synonymous with POC.” All the more reason why I brought your attention to what I actually said which included people other than POC as supporters of AA and since people like Walter Williams are statistically insignificant (in the Black community, at least) — i.e. a minute fraction and seriously small percentage of the opinion population as to be hardly worthy of mentioning… the same way you’ve failed to distinguish the diversity of views among the group you called “liberals” as if all so-called liberals think alike.
Run that by me again… Make sure you cite sources for every single individual, organization or group you feel is involved in said “movement” and note where they, not you or their opponents, have labeled whatever you’re calling their “PC movement” as a “liberation movement.”
Note: The first thing you’d have to explain to me what every single White person who believes in or is part of what YOU call the “PC movement” is being “liberated” from or how they conceptualize, IN THEIR OWN WORDS, the preference for PC/censorship as a “liberation movement.”
September 2, 2009 at 10:59 am
“White women are the primary beneficiaries as a group but not as individuals. So while preferences have benefited white women the most because they are the largest group, the individual white women actually gets less preference than individuals of other preferred groups, except asian women. The pricing reflects what the individual applicant (or cake buyer) receives based on his or her ethnicity and gender.”
Prior to this statement that white women “actually get less preference”, you stated that “ethnicities and whiteness” were not exclusive. Please explain how an individual white woman gets less preference.
“Look, Tina Fey and SNL parodies Sarah Palin. They make fun of her. Republicans, Christians, women, evangelicals, working class people, Alaskans, etc are all offended at various times. But they can’t ask the US govt to shut down SNL b/c Fey’s parody is inaccurate. Of course its inaccurate. its a parody, an exaggeration. Fey takes some artisitc license to make her larger point: palin’s an idiot.”
Tina Fey and SNL parodie the truth about Palin, ie, she is an idiot. SNL didn’t make up out and out lies about Palin, they made a parody of Palin’s own actions.
“Because what it means to live in a free society is that YOU have the right to free speech. So its your responsibility to speak. You can choose not to of course but you can’t force your political opponents to make your points for you, or shut them doen if they don’t. Thats what it means to live in an oppressive society, where religious, ethnic and political minorities are jailed or worse.”
Didn’t you just allude to “clear and present danger”. These Affirmative Action bake sales are not factual, do not instruct, do not educate, and are not opinions based on HOW AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WORKS, as Restructure already pointed out. These bake sales have nothing to do with free speech, if they had anything to do with free speech, they would be based on how affirmative action actually works, instead, they are not really a parody, they are promoting an agenda, no more, no less.
September 2, 2009 at 11:14 am
Manju, Would swastikas, nooses, or cross burning on campus also be part of free speech? Or would they be considered so offensive that the university environment would be considered hostile?
The affirmative action bake sales are symbolic examples of an agenda of white supremacy, they create a hostile environment for learning, they are not factual, these bake sales are based on lies. If aa bake sales were based on truth and accuracy or even a parody of how aa actually works, I don’t believe that a university would ban them.
Also, legacy bake sales would be based on actual facts, right?
September 2, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Resrtucture! I tried to post but it didn’t appear and now when i post agin it says duplicate detected
September 2, 2009 at 3:22 pm
“Show how the AA bake sales reflected the policies of the university where the bake sales were held”
“Hardly. Not a single bake sale articulates Jian Li’s story of not being accepted for admission at Princeton while a white student who graduated from the same high school as Li with lower grades/scores was admitted.”
This is inaccurate. I’ve already demonstrated how the bake sales take into account the peculiar status of Asians in the ruling AA regime (as well as how they reflected white female preferences, which was doubted earlier), reflecting the longstanding conservative criticism of AA as anti-Asian as well as anti-white discrimination. now here’s an example of a bake sale reflecting how some AA programs discriminate against Asians by requiring they have higher scores than whites:
“Purdue student group hosts affirmative action bake sale:”
“The bake sale…featured weighted pricing scale that, according to organizers, reflects the Purdue University affirmative action policies. Asian and Pacific Islander males are charged the most at $1.50 per baked good, followed by Asian and Pacific Islander females ($1.25), Caucasian males ($1.00), Caucasian females ( $0.75), African-American and Hispanic males ($0.50), African-American and Hispanic females ($0.25), and Native Americans ($0.00).”
http://www.lafayette-online.com/purdue-news/2009/02/purdue-student-group-affirmative-action-bake-sale/
In fact, according to La Shawn Barber, “…students of Asian descent typically are charged the most for baked goods…”
So you appear to be completely misinformed on how the bake sales treat asian-ameiricans.
http://www.acri.org/blog/2009/04/14/affirmative-action-bake-sale-shut-down-over-price-discrepancy/
September 2, 2009 at 3:24 pm
“The prevailing anti-AA frame never mentions White racial preferences”
Inaccurate.
!. See above for examples of bake sales mentioning this via parody.
2. Please refer to D’Souza’s Illiberal Eduction previously mentioned. ch 2 on admissions policies at berkeley where he examines whites having preference oer Asian.
3. From the right wing NYPost referenced above pon the Nikita Rau case: “In May, the Education Department sent her parents a letter that said Nikita was not accepted – even though white students who scored lower on the same test were admitted.”
http://www.nypost.com/seven/06252007/news/regionalnews/color_barred_student_regionalnews_dan_mangan.htm
September 2, 2009 at 3:25 pm
“Not a parody. Not an “exaggeration.” It’s “identical in principle.””
The key qualifier is “in principle.” The bake sales are metaphors for AA, so obviously they are not exact duplications, but the principle, discriminating on the basis of gender and ethnicity, is in Williams view identical.
“Jennifer Gratz, the U of M undergrad plaintiff, never considered whether Asian-Americans were denied admissions when lower scoring Whites were admitted”
I haven’t read her lawyer briefs to know if what you say is accurate, but as a matter of law she doesn’t have the standing to represent Asians who may have been discriminated against in the court. she represents herself and was fighting for her individual rights, presumably under the 14th amendment.
September 2, 2009 at 3:25 pm
“Likewise, the young Republican groups on these college campuses, by and large, DO NOT take a principled stance which is why there have been no anti-LEGACY bake sales, anti-wealth/privilege bake sales or anti-athletic scholarship bake sales by these Republican groups.
This is inaccurate. Arguably the leader of the anti-AA movement, Ward Connerly, has come out against legacy, as the right wing Pope Center applauds:
“Connerly, the outspoken former University of California regent (and Pope Center keynote speaker in 2006), contends that they have no place in what should be meritocratic systems. He succeeded in getting legacy preferences banned at the University of California in 2000, four years after his victory over racial preferences through California’s Proposition 209.
Connerly’s position is based on principle. The government should no more prefer individuals just because of a family connection to a university than it should prefer individuals just because their ancestry happens to put them into an “underrepresented minority” category.””
http://www.popecenter.org/issues/article.html?id=1966
“It’s demagoguery, not dissent because there’s no principle involved in their opposition.”
Then your analysis is itself demagoguery. You single out republicans as demagogues because they focus only on AA, which itself is a problematic position as the ward connerly and Pope center example above illustrates, but allow liberal groups who also pick and choose their battles, ie singling out particular
September 2, 2009 at 3:31 pm
The above post got cut off, here it is in full. Restructure!, I broke up the post so I guess it got thru the spam fliter, whcih i sssume was responsible for my inability to post earlier.
“It’s demagoguery, not dissent because there’s no principle involved in their opposition.”
Then your analysis is itself demagoguery. You single out republicans as demagogues because they focus only on AA, which itself is a problematic position as the ward connerly and Pope center example above illustrates, but allow liberal groups who also pick and choose their battles, ie singling out particular forms of injustice while leaving out others, to escape your label. So you yourself are deploying a double standard which by you own definition constitutes demagoguery.
September 2, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Manju: “This is inaccurate. Arguably the leader of the anti-AA movement…”
Ward Connerly = YOUNG REPUBLICANS???
Okay. GAME OVER. You lose.
I can’t even count the number of times you’ve claimed something I’ve said was “inaccurate” or whatever when you’ve willfully ignored the very thing I said. Sucks to be (ill-equipped or unequipped like) you.
Tragic loss. Epic fail. The whole entire thread has consisted of several people telling you… insisting that the bake sales do not reflect THE WAY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WORKS… IN PRINCIPLE, in reality, anywhere, etc., etc., etc.
Funny how AT NO POINT in this thread have you ever illustrated how the bake sales reflect the same principle that AA operates on. Funny how you can’t engage me in actual debate. Funny how I’ve already stipulated to how the bake sales do not reflect AA, IN PRINCIPLE, in reality… in any reasonable person’s (which is not to be confused with self-serving, petty partisan persons) mind:
As Restructure said, “Affirmative Action doesn’t work like that” — i.e. the business of college admissions involves too many factors for a price to be put on any one individuals cookie-tax rate. The bake salers have pattern White blindness and either don’t see or care when the “preferences” advantage Whites who have been historically advantaged and already have a built-in social advantage inherited from that not-so-distant (more) racist past.
I’ll slow down and let you catch up… but you’re going to have to say something when you can get my dust out your throat. And on that score, let me add this:
When I was getting ready for work today, I caught a CNN story dealing with the high stakes, big-money SAT/ACT testing industry. Long and short, the story contrasted the big corporate salaries testing companies make with the research data that shows how socio-economic status, not test scores, is the best predictor of academic success in college.
The most enduring pro-AA argument is how society has never reconciled or off-set the historical advantage in overall socio-economic status that was delivered to Whites and continues to be via legacies and the things mentioned in “The Price of Admission”… talk about the status quo…
Anyway… back to your bs. It was exactly because Restructure insisted that AA doesn’t “work like that” — i.e. the way the anti-AA bake sales do — that an argument-challenged person like you floated the pathetic “parody” rationale. You know, the bake sales was an “exaggeration.” The problem is the exaggerated version, the mindless “parody” by the bake salers doesn’t reflect or embody the principle behind AA.
The bake sales exist in a vacuum. AA exist in a country with an unresolved history of CENTURIES of White Privilege/Advantage which, again, was NEVER reconciled or off-set. The bake sales doesn’t put a price on the accumulated advantage Whites receive and CONTINUE TO RECEIVE.
And Ward Connerly provides you no cover or anything close to a point. Ward Connerly hasn’t launched anti-LEGACY campaigns. LIP SERVICE is easy. So easy that you nore Connerly can explain why his “civil rights” ballot initiatives have never sought to kill two or more birds with one stone — i.e. Connerly could just as easily attack LEGACIES and everything else that factors in admissions decisions (you know, like ALL THAT STUFF I POSTED THAT YOU PURPOSELY OVERLOOKED) besides academic merit but Mr. Lip-Hypocrite-CONNERLY hasn’t and won’t do that. You lose again.
And, really, he is the perfect example of a NON-PRINCIPLED anti-AA activist. I guess [Young] College Republican Jason Mattera was following the lead of the hypocritical leader (Connerly) himself.
Also, Ward Connerly hasn’t rallied his troops on the campuses of the HBCU’s where Whites benefit from WHITE ONLY scholarships and affirmative action. So, Connerly is another demagogue (and a HYPOCRITE).
September 3, 2009 at 12:58 am
“CONservatives who insisted Rev. Jeremiah “goddamn America” Wright shouldn’t be allowed to speak”
Source please? Which conservatives called for Wright’s censure?
September 3, 2009 at 12:59 am
“Ward Connerly = YOUNG REPUBLICANS???”
Fine. He’s not a young republican so I can give you a win on that point due to a technicality but he is associated the group as you yourself acknowledge: “guess [Young] College Republican Jason Mattera was following the lead of the hypocritical leader (Connerly) himself.”
In fact he’s even more closely associated with the anti-AA position than the young republicans so his success in getting legacy preferences banned at the University of California completely demolishes your bombastic and uninformed claim that “The prevailing anti-AA frame never mentions White racial preferences” when in fact the very leader of the Anti-AA movement is opposed to such preferences. As you would say, “Okay. GAME OVER. You lose.” You also lost completely on these two points of yours:
1.“Funny how White favoring enrollment restricting quotas used against Asian students (which has been a problem in recent history) aren’t a part of the routine.”
2. Not a single bake sale articulates Jian Li’s story of not being accepted for admission at Princeton while a white student who graduated from the same high school as Li with lower grades/scores was admitted
September 3, 2009 at 1:00 am
“The bake sales exist in a vacuum. AA exist in a country with an unresolved history of CENTURIES of White Privilege/Advantage which, again, was NEVER reconciled or off-set. The bake sales doesn’t put a price on the accumulated advantage Whites receive and CONTINUE TO RECEIVE”
I don’t disagree with this assessment, as I hinted at earlier. But that doesn’t mean the bake sales are false in the sense that holocaust denial is false, nor does it mean they’re demagogic, and it certainly doesn’t mean they rise to the level of unprotected speech.
This just reflects the limits of the artform. Likewise, anti-globalization rallies don’t address the context of the millions slaughtered by Mao in china or the abject poverty India suffered under socialists like Nehru. They just rail against free trade and globalization as if it emerged from a vacuum, not from nations liberating themselves from brutal years of communist and socialist domination.
Likewise, anti-Israel rallies don’t address anti-Semitism and the rise of radical Islam. In other words the limits of their platform force them to decontextualize. The anti-apartheid movement failed to address other forms of domination, like communism or castism, just like the bake sales fail to address legacy.
These are all examples of shortcomings, but it doesn’t make the protestors necessarily wrong, nor does it make them demagogues like the people who think israel planned 911, and it certainly doesn’t mean they should be banned from a liberal campus…which is my central point.
September 3, 2009 at 1:01 am
“Ward Connerly hasn’t launched anti-LEGACY campaigns”
According to the Pope Center: “He succeeded in getting legacy preferences banned at the University of California in 2000”
http://www.popecenter.org/issues/article.html?id=1966
September 3, 2009 at 1:02 am
“And, really, he is the perfect example of a NON-PRINCIPLED anti-AA activist.”
So he’s a hypocrite. So is Ted Kennedy in regards to treating the victims of rape (William Kennedy Smith Trial). So is Angela Davis as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn explains: “You have such great authority now. Could you help our Czech prisoners? Could you stand up for those people in Czechoslovakia who are being persecuted by the state?’ Angela Davis answered: `They deserve what they get. Let them remain in prison.’”
http://www.angeladavis.org/
One of the signs of an ideologue is that they demonize their opponents, questioning their motives while refusing to do the same for people on their side. This leads to a simplistic black and white worldview that is characteristic of Political Correctness. I don’t necessarily disagree with your criticism of the failure of the bake sales to contextualize, or of ward connerly hypocrisy, but these are very common traits of many movements and individuals.
You say “demagoguery is based on some kind of self-serving agenda” not principle, but by selectively singling out the bake sellers and connerly for traits common to many people and movements, you yourself are not acting on principle, and that makes you that which you condemn…though I’d still allow you on campus.
September 3, 2009 at 10:45 am
“Manju, Would swastikas, nooses, or cross burning on campus also be part of free speech? Or would they be considered so offensive that the university environment would be considered hostile?”
These are constitutionally protected symbolic speech, and I’d allow them on Manju U short of when they are placed in such a context that they trigger the very very very narrow exception that they constitute a physical threat to another, such as when a noose was placed on a Colombia U professors door (though later the evidence suggested she put it in her own door).
Since Nazi’s and Klansman are so out of the mainstream and almost non-existent in the student population, I don’t think you’d have to worry about them bringing such symbols to the campus, as I know of no recent example of such. So its probably a moot point anyway.
However, it is likely those who hold that which has been labeled PC beliefs–antiwar, antibush, antiisrael–would use these symbols as evidenced here:
http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=612
Now I find such uses appalling. Its inaccurate, emotional, insensitive to holocaust victims, and in one case at least (the reichstag II poster) rises to the level of holocaust denial conspiracy theories.
But its still dissent. I would not want the university authorities to shut them down.
September 3, 2009 at 10:53 am
“Manju, Would swastikas, nooses, or cross burning on campus also be part of free speech? Or would they be considered so offensive that the university environment would be considered hostile?”
Kathy:
If I may ask you a question now. Given your position on the bake sale and the dollar bills, I assume you’d want to see these symbols banned. I noticed however that you only mentioned symbols associates with nazis and Klansman, but modes of oppression go far beyond these groups.
My question then is what about the hammer and sickle, an al quaeda symbol, a tamil tiger flag, a che guervara t-shirt, a bust of mao, pol pot, stalin or lenin, or perhaps a Brahman symbol.
If you were to hear testimony from a victim of stalin purges, mao’s cultural revolution, a cuban political prisoner, a victim of islamic terror, of tamil terror, or a dalit subjected to indian casteism…would you extend your censorship out to these symbols?
September 3, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Manju,
With all the symbols that you do mention, you don’t mention the context in which they would be presented, none of those items would be banned from study from an actual historical context,neither would a swastika, noose, or cross, but I would certainly think that students should have the same rights in the school environment that employees are entitled to in a work environment, an environment free of hostility.
I wouldn’t want to attend Manju U, it would seem too hostile to foster a learning environment, and it would not present symbols in a truthful, accurate manner.
If affirmative action bake sales were done as a learning experience, where HOW AA actually works, with opinions and debate from both sides, than that would be a different story, as it is now, aa bake sales do not present accurate information on how aa works.
If am curious, could you please outline your own plan for an Affirmative action bake sale?
September 3, 2009 at 5:17 pm
@kathy:
I was thinking the same thing today about comparing a hostile learning environment with workplace hostility.
Public school teachers should not have the right to use racial slurs again their students, even if their employer, the government, guarantees them freedom of speech. Even employees of private companies or the government should not have the right to sexually or racially harass other employees.
September 4, 2009 at 4:42 am
@Restructure
I agree, and I think the anti-racist community should pursue this and tackle the problem of enforcing such laws. Even when the laws are in place, it’s always a case of their word versus yours. A lot of people that find themselves the subject of racial or sexual harassment don’t necessarily anticipate it happening and don’t carry a tape-recorder around in their pockets every time they go to work or school.
Does it need to come to that? Do POC need to literally carry around tape-recorders for a chance at justice? It sounds silly, but it is practical, and I think all we need is for a trend to take place before waves happen. Especially in places like Canada where non-racism is a myth that refuses to die.
September 4, 2009 at 4:55 am
I wouldn’t want to attend Manju U, it would seem too hostile to foster a learning environment, and it would not present symbols in a truthful, accurate manner.
September 4, 2009 at 4:58 am
I wouldn’t want to attend Manju U, it would seem too hostile to foster a learning environment, and it would not present symbols in a truthful, accurate manner.
Manju U sounds like a Libertarian Kool-Aid drinker’s fantasy world. But for many, it would be a nightmare dressed in the garb of freedom.
September 4, 2009 at 11:12 am
“With all the symbols that you do mention, you don’t mention the context in which they would be presented”
kathy: lets keep the context the same as we’ve been discussing: student speech on campus but not in the classroom, like the bake sale.
I assume you’d have a problem with a student carrying a nazi flag, in the context of advocating for fascism, on campus. so what if a student were carrying an al qaeda flag, a flag featuring che guevara, pol pot, or stalin. a Hindu nationalist carrying a Hindutva symbol ( for some context, there are hindu nationalist student groups on campus and they’ve had some connections to their indian counterparts who have committed atrocities against Muslims, ie the Gujarat program)?
what would you do with these individuals and groups on kathy U?
September 4, 2009 at 11:14 am
that should be gujarat pogrom, not program.
September 4, 2009 at 11:38 am
“I was thinking the same thing today about comparing a hostile learning environment with workplace hostility.
Public school teachers should not have the right to use racial slurs again their students, even if their employer, the government, guarantees them freedom of speech. Even employees of private companies or the government should not have the right to sexually or racially harass other employees.”
I was going to bring this up earlier when you mentioned creationism being banned from the classroom but the shift to professor speech in the classroom represents a dramatic shift in context from student speech on campus. there are restrictions long acknowledged by scotus as constitutional that allow for the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws as well as the universities right to decide who may teach and
what may be taught .
i’ll elaborate on this later when i have time since its very nuanced and a lot of intellectual firepower has gone into deciding where to place the limits in order to preserve free the exchange of ideas and make sure unpopular ideas are not suppressed.
but suffice to say, student speech out of the classroom (but on campuss) represents a very different context. the power relations are not there (the student can’t lower your grade, engage in sexual harassment quid pro quo, for example), you are not a captive audience in this context, etc so the bar to demonstrate racial or sexual harassment here is much higher (usually involving physical threats putting one in immanent danger, ie fighting words doctrine)
sorry for the quick, muddled reply, i’ll elaborate later.
September 4, 2009 at 2:06 pm
“Manju U sounds like a Libertarian Kool-Aid drinker’s fantasy world. But for many, it would be a nightmare dressed in the garb of freedom.”
I assure you this is far from an ayn randian like libertarian fantasy but rather represents the reality in america. the reason you don’t see the kkk on campus is not because they’re banned, but rather for the same reason you don’t see them marching down 5th avenue in NYC. granted, american free speech doctrine has reached near libertarian perfection but there are still limits as i’ve mentioned, and a lot of intellectual firepower has resulted in very nuanced doctrines generally designed to preserve free and open debate, dissent, and even demagoguery, as there is no reliable ways to differentiate between the two Ds without giving authorities the power to stifle unpopular opinions.
i would like to add that he increased libertarian nature of free speech in America has coincided with the civil rights movement and increased immigration that has made the states the primary destination for POC around the world. the near absolutist religious freedom afforded here has made america is very important to religious minorties.
in contrast, france has adopted free speech restrictions more along the lines of PCness. Part of the rationale for banning the burka and hijab is that these symbols represents the patriarchy. like many leftists, they don’t make the clear distinction between physical and non-physical force, thus justifying the suppression of the burka on the grounds that women wearing them are “forced” by an overwhelming social construction based on male supremacy. also, these symbols may be triggering and offensive to other women because they represent gender oppression.
In america, however, such laws would clearly violate the free speech and free exercise clauses of the first amendment. our nearly absolutist approach to religious freedom is of special concern to religious minorities since they are the ones most vulnerable. this is why i find your confidence that such restrictions won’t come around to bite POC the way they did Ms. Dworkin completely ahistorical.
September 4, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Manju,
Why do you use Canadian terms like “the States”?
Anyway, Australia and Canada have higher immigration rates than the States, and they also have higher per capita immigrant populations than the States. While it is true that the United States receives the most immigrants in absolute terms, isn’t it because it is bigger, not because it has more liberal immigration policies or more freedom? (It doesn’t.) After all, gay refugees being persecuted in countries where homosexuality is illegal (e.g., Iran) come to Canada, not the United States.
No, France is just ethnocentric, which is why they do not ban Catholic nun habits.
September 9, 2009 at 8:07 am
This is off-topic but have you ever written about racism in graduate schools?
Macon D of stuffwhitepeopledo recently stated “whenever white people congregate these days, high concentrations of racial homogeneity are just pure coincidence.” …
I am a graduate student at a major biological “research institution” in New York City. You wouldn’t know this is a graduate/research program if you stumbled on campus. This exclusive, highly maintained campus feels more like Sandals resort with all of the young upper-middle class white or white male/asian female couples roaming around hand-in-hand during the evenings. Groups of white or white-and-asian students roam with tennis rackets on their way to the on-campus court. Or they congregate in packs at the on-campus student lounge with a personal bartender. Or the white and asian students have parties in the hotel-like student lounge of the dorms.
Most of the groups of people you see dotted around campus are all-white or white-and-asian. The campus is mostly white with a substantial number of asians but has a serious dearth of black or latino students–and I almost never see the other black students.
You wouldn’t believe the amounts of implicit racism I’ve experienced here. Twice while coming on campus I’ve been stopped in a hostile and condescending manner by newly-hired guards who, having seen my ID, told me that I am ‘ok’ since I was a groundskeepers or a day worker for the animal facility whose staff is mostly black and latino.
Coming to my dorm, almost every six months someone gives me a hostile look in the foyer as if I’m some intruder. When I attend lectures, I meet the same hostility until I ask a serious academic question of the lecturer.
When someone new comes to my lab, they’ll automatically either intentionally ignore me or attempt to condescend to me. Scientific sales reps will intentionally ignore me and proceed to the white guys who are also just students. Believe it or not, this one white girl who rotated in the lab would speak to me in a passive-aggressive/patronizing manner. And almost everyone in the lab, despite my being there for years and attempting to form working relationships with them, never come to me casually or attempt to have conversations (work or otherwise) with me unless I initiate the conversation and never at the casual or intelligent level they have with each other.
I noticed the other two black guys, who are accomodationists (and overrepresented with respect to the real dearth of black students on campus), also attempt to have conversations with the white people in the lab but they are always the ones to initiate the conversation.
After five years of being here, the only thing I’ve learned is that white and asian people are the only people competent enough to be scientists.
A maintenance staff guy wrote an article in the student rag praising the university’s president in light of the great hall of European philosophers like Kant and Hume and the great European scientific tradition. Additionally, the sense of ownership and privilege among other students is just incredible.
I’m beginning to think that biomedical science is almost a white supremist enterprise by default. Science is supposed to be a collaborative endeavor with a free collegial exchange of information and support, but when people are constantly patronizing or condescending to you, such is a psychological assault informing you that you are inconsequential, “tolerated” or unwelcomed. I read a report somewhere that around half of black graduate science students drop out of their programs. If they meet the same kinds of hostility or implied white supremacy I meet, small wonder.
I’ve especially felt a sort of patronizing attitude right off the bat from many of the white female students on campus. White women, with the help of affirmative action, have made great gains in both scientific student bodies and faculty, but you would still be wont to find black faculty and only a little more lucky in locating black students in scientific graduate programs across the country. That aside, most of my interactions with white females on campus has been unnecessarily hostile and patronizing.
There are two other black male students who happen to be in my lab; they’re very sycophantic towards the white male students, which surprised me. They’re always kissing up, laughing nervously, you know that trying to court your attention laugh, around these other white males who are just graduate students like them. They prick up their minds and attempt to engage the se white guys with crisp, intelligent conversation. They’ll go to the white guys equally whenever they have a problem as if they are the fount of knowledge, (I’ve never seen them approach any of the white girls or the Indian guy when they have problems, but they will approach them for prick-up-your-mind ‘casual’ conversation, more than they give me [or each other]). When explicitly in the company of the white guys (which never seems to be together with each other), they intentionally ignore me or will attempt to condescend to me. It’s irritating to watch white guys no better than the average black guy get their egos stroked day after day by white girls and sycophantic blacks while they also slap themselves on the back. It’s not like they’re especially brilliant or that this science is just so difficult that only superiorly intelligent white supremists like James Watson can do it.
I don’t even want to get into the student listserve conversation I had to observe in the wake of James Watson’s comments back in 2007. Some of them practically endorsed the man with statements like “science is about objective data, not political correctness” or “what does giving a writing prize for his autobiography have to do with him making statements that any old man would make”?
September 9, 2009 at 10:38 am
La Smart One,
Thank you for this. The lack of representation in fields such as biomed science is often easily taken…
September 9, 2009 at 12:11 pm
@ LaSmartOne
That school sounds like it is just oozing with White privilege and racial entitlement (as well as certain “Asians” who happily play the role of Honorary Whites).
I’m beginning to think that biomedical science is almost a white supremist enterprise by default.
That may be truer than you realize. I’m not a scientist, but is biomedical science related to human genetics by any chance?
There was an interesting book by Edwin Black called _War Against Weak_ that documented how America both aided the eugenics program of Nazi Germany and created its own domestic US eugenics program in the first part of the 20th-century.
Black further suggests that, after WWII ended and Nazi atrocities came to light, this American eugenics movement rebranded itself and created the discipline that is known today as “human genetics.”
It’s an interesting history of this field that many people are ignorant of and perhaps casts James Watson’s work in a more disturbing light.
http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/
September 10, 2009 at 10:16 am
Back in the 70s “politically correct” was used among SDS, PLP, Maoists and leftists. A friend of mine even rewrote the BeeGees “Stayin Alive” as “Stayin Correct”–as a party-joke.
The right stole the terminology from us, but some of us still use the term in its leftist form. I resent that we are assumed to be using it in the way that right-wingers who appropriated it have used it since then. It was ours first. I am so tired of young people who have no sense of the history of the term, telling me how I should use it.
In Marxist–Leninist and Trotskyist vocabulary, correct was the common term denoting the “appropriate party line” and the ideologically “correct line”.[4] Likewise in the People’s Republic of China, as part of Mao’s declarations on the correct handling of “non-antagonistic contradictions”.[1][5][6][7]
From Wikipedia.
September 11, 2009 at 8:09 am
@Daisy: Thanks. I updated the post with your correction.
@LaSmartOne: I am not in a position to write about racism in grad schools and/or I cannot blog about academic-related things anonymously. However, something bothers me about lumping together Asians with whites. I have experienced a white individual feeling that there are too many Asians, and lumping me together with Asian international students, as if I am a foreign invasion because I am not white. The white individual does not see me as a fellow citizen in the way that I see him/her as a fellow citizen.
I wrote a post about the Asian model minority stereotype.
I liked the rest of your comment, though. Thank you.
September 11, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Restructure,
I read your link to the Model Minority Myth, thank you, I will probably get to your other links on this subject as well.
Seems to me that Asians and whites are quite often lumped together, and I have encountered some people who believe that being treated like an object, treated like a perpetual foreigner, killed without consequences, taunted and abused in school yards, working harder to get to the same place, are not really disadvantages, or that there should be an oppression olympics where Asians have an invisible advantage. Thanks for your link, again.
September 14, 2009 at 1:55 am
Another annoying thing about the lumping of Asians in along with whites is the insulting assumption that Asians have somehow ‘bought into’ the culture of whiteness and that we’ve become somehow white-washed imposters in our quest to abandon our foreign-ness to become more American/Canadian or what-have-you. There’s the implicit expectation that Asians have been suckered into every single trope and role set out for us and that we won’t contest it, or white privilege, as though we’re a conquered people.
I see it when whites make jokes about POC in my presence and seem to expect me to nod along and agree… even when they barely know me! Or when their privilege is being stepped on and they can’t express it in words (part of privilege is that it’s supposed to be invisible, normalized in the cultural fabric, and it needn’t be necessary to defend it), they have to go out of their way to be all vague and subtle about it and get more and more visibly frustrated when I don’t listen or play along with their tricks and games.
In this day and age, it’s truly mind-boggling, but old habits are slow to die, I guess.
September 15, 2009 at 1:13 pm
[…] have traditionally benefitted from social and political privilege coined the new, made-up term “politically correct” to undermine and denigrate those doing the questioning. the intellectual dishonesty is […]
September 23, 2009 at 9:01 am
[…] By Guest Contributor Restructure!, originally posted at Restructure! […]
November 16, 2009 at 1:33 am
Interesting “commentary” from a deluded black guy in response to this post.
http://forums.ffshrine.org/showpost.php?p=1366548&postcount=4817
August 22, 2010 at 1:06 pm
how pollitacally correct are the dog and snake eating dirty chinese people?
November 5, 2010 at 8:25 am
This thread illustrates a recurring pattern in the discourse on this site. Restructure publishes an article that, (surprise!), demonizes whites or comes up with yet another microscopically nit-picking “example of oppression”, the faithful thank her for her “insightful” post and then along comes the lone dissenting voice. The faithful attack the dissenter en masse, at first with superficially civil argument, but as the dissenter continues to argue his point effectively the faithful become agitated and the tone of their posts changes from arrogant and dismissive to openly hostile. The dissenter still isn’t silenced, so somebody swoops in with an “off-topic” post. The faithful pounce on that distraction like the lifeline that it is and the original discussion is effectively derailed. The dissenter realizes that he’s casting his pearls before an insular crowd of fossilized, self-serving ideologues and turns his attention to some other effort that is actually productive.
January 20, 2011 at 8:58 am
[…] “Political Correctness” is a reactionary term against the loss of privilege. « Restructure!. Berg believes this is what political correctness is all about: “The term politically correct is a reactionary term,” he said. “[It was] created by people who were worried by [social] changes…that affected their everyday understanding of the world in ways that pointed out their role in creating or reproducing dominance and subordination.” Share and Enjoy: […]
March 30, 2011 at 4:23 pm
[…] Political Correctness is a reactionary term against the loss of privilege at Restructure! […]
February 17, 2012 at 12:17 pm
[…] correct, and you stopped having fun, and we stopped having fun too.” I pointed out the dogwhistle that is the term “politically correct.” He went on the defensive, saying, “well see, you just judged me, because of a term I […]