ET Warrior Posted January 31, 2004 Author Share Posted January 31, 2004 Originally posted by rccar328 Not necessarily - like I said before, when a professor introduces politics into a classroom lecture, it is often intimidating for students who do not agree - they do not know if it is safe to approach that professor (i.e. the possibility that it could translate into a lower grade), and so must deal with paying large amounts of money to be preached to in classes where political views simply have no place. Professors are authority figures, and as students, it is easy to be intimidated, especially when they are passionate about political views. Agreed, you don't pay for a class to be preached to about the professors political idealogies, but I thought it was you who said the majority of the time it's not even actually talking, it's more just side-comments and jeers and the like. In which case, I'm inclined to say stop your crying and move on with your life. You paid your money to learn, so pay attention when the professor is teaching and don't pay attention when he isn't. The professors job is to cover the course material in the semester, and the occasional comment thrown out in class isn't going to stop him from accomplishing that. We're big kids now, and perhaps we should start acting it. First of all, if you have a problem with the professor, APPROACH HIM FIRST about it. Nothing will change if the professor isn't aware that he's actually bothering people. Secondly, students who are intimidated should learn that it's necessary in life to approach authority figures at times or they're just going to get walked all over for the rest of their lives. Thirdly, if approached nicely, and calmly explained about how their comments are affecting the class, I highly doubt a college professor is going to get all hurt about it and make it his personal vendetta to fail that kid. It's like the members of Students for a Better America all assume that since the teachers are liberals they are evil and out for blood and can and will fail any kid they know is a Republican. Which is absolutely ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taoistimmortal Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 Students for a better America, it seems, are reacting to the F the student got who wrote the "Why Saddam Hussein is a war criminal" essay instead of the "Why George W. Bush is a war criminal" essay that was assinged. Granted the class was a criminology class but what the shazam. That is a pure case of political bias in the classroom or in the very least it completely appears that way and I can understand why a student who holds conservative opinions or beliefs would be offended. I'm going to be blunt and say that if I was given that assingment I would definately enjoy it. On the one hand I do not like Bush and on the other it would give me the opportunity to research media reports that dont often get released in the mainstream, and maybe the professor thought the same thing (that his students would learn of some of the atrocities that our soldiers and airmen have inflicted on Iraqi civilians) but even if he did do it for this reason his choice was at bottom certainly in some way politically motivated which is one of the points that have been debated in this thread over the last couple of days. Was this an attempt at indoctrination on the proffessor's part. Possibly. In fact I will say that it is as I understand the definition of indoctrination, but even so I think it is an assingment that could open some peoples eyes. That of course is my point of view, and my bias. As for whether or not teachers in the future should be disallowed from giving such politically charged assingments I say no they should not be constrained in that matter because there is a value to it even if some students are offended. Just for the record I think the student got an F for failure to follow the assignment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 ET, I kinda agree with you - when it gets right down to it, if you're uncomfortable, you've either gotta go discuss it with the professor, or just "cowboy up" and roll with it, which I have been doing. If my grades were being affected in a class because I expressed my political views, I would definitely be talking to the professor, and if that produced no results, I would go over his head. That's the way it should be done. Just for the record I think the student got an F for failure to follow the assignment. According to the essay, the student got an F for being politically incorrect, which really has nothing to do with the quality of the assignment itself or the fact that it didn't address the assigned topic. Had I been given that assignment, I'd ask for an alternate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted February 6, 2004 Author Share Posted February 6, 2004 Jeez It's like the Republicans have suddenly decided we all really care who they are, and we really just need to know it. I mean, I have no problem with the fact that they're republican, but COME ON, it's not like they were doing anything besides getting up on stage and saying "Hey, I'm a republican, look at me" Maybe i'm just easily irritated. I dont know. I would be almost as annoyed if the democrats had done it. The only reason that the republicans annoy me more is because of the Students for a better America business already going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 it basically sounds like a typical case of kinds who want to be different and rebel against the standard of their school. I don't agree that one essay topic should be a problem. Even if it is something you disagree with it is often very good practice to have to argue the opposite opinion. I remember at school we often had to have debates and they would purposefully put people on the opposite side to that which they believed. It is a good tactic for broadening opinion and giving you a taste of other points of view. Of course, if the entire course was politically biased one way or the other then that isn't a good thing, but this isn't the best way to deal with it and seem more of a case of trying to get noticed by being outspoken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted February 12, 2004 Author Share Posted February 12, 2004 Alright,this is about all I can take. This is just absolutely ridiculous and crappy. *sigh* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abcd1234 Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 This is a joke. I can't believe them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 It's no joke. The same thing was done last year (another college or CU?). It's racism, pure and simple. I'm surprised that a university political party affiliated with Republicans would do such a thing. If they wanted to make a statement that was closer in reality to "affirmative action," they would first have to disallow blacks and latinos from buying bake goods, then allow it but have a separate table for blacks and latinos. Then, they could integrate the lines on another day, but have the blacks and latinos take a test in order to qualify for cupcakes and bagels. Finally, after a few days of that, they could try to make it all right and then offer the reduces prices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted February 12, 2004 Author Share Posted February 12, 2004 I think the University that did it before was in washington...but I could be mistaken. There was an African American guy talking about it on the bus today. He said he'd never been more offended in his entire life, it was like they were saying because he was black he couldn't afford more than 25 cents per cookie. I'm mad about this. It is absolutely ridiculous, out of hand, and those GOP members are being rotten biggots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Gah...it's been almost two generations fron MLK's time, and around 10 from the Civil War. Almost anyone who wants to enslave blacks again are few and far between. I mean really, Asians have to pay a dollar..they were discriminated by the White Men too! Dont you remember the camps and the Transcontinental railroad? Meh..I think that this is bull, and this is coming from a hispanic Albino. Over here, I've seen almost no discrimination against latinos/blacks/ native americans, even though I have seen some discrimination against a few whites(myself included..no one seems to believe I'm hispanic..). Oh well, I'm partly Native American too. If I drop by Colorado any time soon, I'll pick up a couple dozens or so of cookies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 The news article stated that it was "donations," right? Get a couple guys together and do a poster board that says "FREE FOOD! Just take what you want!" With an arrow pointing to the bakesale. Then tell anybody that pays attention that the donations are nice, but unnecessary.... Or.... Get a bunch of students who are pissed at it together to keep going back for more and more and more... without leaving donations. In fact, there's usually multiple bake sales going on at the same time... take the cookies, cupcakes, and bagels over to the Anthropology Club's bakesale and donate them Tell them it's from another University's Anth club and give them my email! But above all... if it's "donations" only, and the prices are, indeed, suggested... then TAKE some grub! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 wow, look like the US has a huge racism problem even today... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted February 12, 2004 Author Share Posted February 12, 2004 I have a muslim friend who had a great idea, but it was snowy and cold today so we just said screw those guys and we didn't go. His idea was to go up to them and buy a TON of cookies for 25 cents and then say "So you want to teach us about affirmative action? Well I'm going to teach you something about Capitalism" And then proceed to set up a table selling all the cookies for 50 cents, regardless of race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 hey that's a good idea great use of Capitalism! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 The thing that gets me about the bake sale is that to most liberals, affirmative action is okay because it is politically correct on a large scale (whitey oppressed the African-Americans, so now it's his turn), but when conservatives try to show just how messed-up & idiotic affirmative action is by demonstrating it on a small scale, it is seen as racist, extremely politically incorrect and is deemed stupid. I've already commented on the movement against liberal professors - I think they should just deal with it (if they really want to change things in the universities, maybe they should become professors themselves). When it comes to affirmative action, though, somehow the idea that reverse racism/sexism is okay because past generations of white males oppressed past generations of black/hispanic/asian/female people, and therefore the current generation of white people should pay through racial quotas and whatnot. The problem with this is that it does not move our society toward being less racist, but rather cheapens the true meaning of racism by turning it into some kind of politically correct game. The problem with the bake sale idea is not that it is politically incorrect or stupid, but rather is that people are not willing to see it for what it is (an anti-affirmative action demonstration), and instead define it as racist, rediculous, bigoted, hateful, and stupid. What people don't see about affirmative action is that even though it was desined to help minorities, it treats those same minorities as inferior, saying that they are unable to get jobs on their own and therefore the government must help them out. Affirmative action does not break down the raciel barriers in our society, but rather brings them to the forefront, creating more raciel tension instead of allowing our society to work racism out of its system. I'm not saying that racism will ever truly leave our society, but programs like affirmative action certainly don't help matters. If people were offended by these students' demonstration, just remember that affirmative action works on the same basic concept. SkinWalker, I agree with your concept of making it a true parallel to affirmative action/racial descrimination, but do you really think people would put up with it for that long? And the really funny thing is, most of the people that are offended by this kind of demonstration and write it of as racist are in support of affirmative action as a "progressive" reform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted February 12, 2004 Author Share Posted February 12, 2004 Actually, while at first glance affirmative action does seem to be racism, what it's doing is attempting to balance the equation. We held the minorities down so long they never go jobs, never rose into positions of power, and now most people in the position to hire employees are white, and as much as we'd like to think it, if a black candidate and a white candidate are both equally qualified for the job, and they both interview extremely well, a white boss will choose the white employee, just because we're more comfortable with our own race. Affirmative action takes that decision out of the employers hand. If he has two equally qualified people, he'll take the minority to fill his quota, but still keep qualified people working for him. Eventually this allows minorities to rise up in the ranks, and the money is more evenly distributed. The problem is that it causes unbalance, and most people think that those minoritites got those jobs just because they weren't white. True sometimes, but not always. It's an imperfect system with many flaws, but it's all we've got, because SOMETHING has to be done to rectify the big goof we made earlier in our history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 I agree with you on the level that past racism was wrong and that it did (and still does, in some cases) keep minorities from getting good jobs. However, I strongly believe that racism of any kind is wrong, and we will never defeat racism with racism. The problem with affirmative action is that if a minority is hired to fill a quota, then it doesn't really matter how skilled they are coming in, the perception is that they were only hired due to their race, and not because of their merit. I've seen this work both ways in my father's company - when his company was looking for a new technician, they were forced to hire an unqualified hispanic man instead of an extremely qualified white man. This hispanic man was not hired on merit, and he knew it. He was there to fill a quota, and this was reflected in his job performance - no matter how hard they tried to train him, he just didn't care. He had job security because that quota had to be maintained. He did enough work to keep from getting fired, but no more. Conversely, after my father transfered to another division, they were looking for a softward programmer. The man that they hired was a very qualified hispanic man, and they hired him due to his merit, not his race (their racial quota was already filled in that division). This man was willing to work hard because he enjoyed what he did and was good at it, and was hired because of that. He had to prove himself, though, because my father's company had seen case after case where underqualified employees were hired due to racial quotas. Now, I'm not saying that this is what happens in every case, but it is an example of the danger of a program like affirmative action. I think that affirmative action looks good on paper - the righting of past wrongs is a noble cause. The problem, though, is that it assumes that minorities are not good enough to get by on their own, and must have governmental assistance. It takes competition out of the picture completely. I believe that minorities can easily be just as qualified as whites, but with affirmative action, why expend the resources and energy to be more qualified when they'll have to hire & train you anyway? I believe that our capitalist system is becoming so much about money that race is mattering less and less - businesses are going to hire the most qualified candidate, who will make them the most money, no matter what. It's not a perfect system - there is still some racial prejudice out there, but it's getting better as the focus turns from race to merit (Rember Martin Luther King - judged not by the color of their skin, but the content of their character). Affirmative action becomes a problem because even though the system is turning away from race and toward merit, this program makes race the focus all over again. Now, I don't know if a turning away from racial bias is as prevalent as I'd like to believe, but I believe that affirmative action is the wrong way to fix the problem. Under affirmative action, the problem becomes motivation. Minorities should earn jobs based on their merits, not be given jobs because of their race. Otherwise, what kind of accomplishment is it to get a job? It's the difference between this: "I got the job because I'm the best in my field." and this: "I got the job because I'm black." Affirmative action assumes that minorities are too unskilled and/or stupid to get jobs on their own, and that they need the government's help to do it. What's more, it takes away minorities' motivation to become educated and qualified for jobs by giving them jobs that they aren't qualified for (once again, not always the case, but too often). The truth is, the anti-affirmative action bake sale demonstration is no less racist than affirmative action itself. The difference is that instead of having this kind of racism on a grand scale across a nation, it becomes in-your-face; it becomes a reality that is demonstrated clearly, right there in front of you. It seems blatently racist and wrong. And it is. And so is the program that it demonstrates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 I have to agree, but you have to remember that due to the past actions done by white people, you have to be quite politically correct, as much as you don't like it. Every country, every culture is a racist one and we have to beware of all of it. However, making such a bakesale makes it look like a fight against non-whites, they should have chosen something else that shows that the thing is stupid and clearly stating that it has nothing to do with racism. I believe that minorities can easily be just as qualified as whites I'm sorry, you do not believe that we are just as qualified, we are just as qualified. At least this is better then those black men requesting millions for their problems of the past... That's just dumb... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 you do not believe that we are just as qualified, we are just as qualified. Agreed - I was stating my personal beliefs, but minorities are just as qualified as whites. I have to agree, but you have to remember that due to the past actions done by white people, you have to be quite politically correct, as much as you don't like it. Every country, every culture is a racist one and we have to beware of all of it. Why? Political correctness does not work, as much as we would like it to. 1. It only lasts for one generation. Think of African Americans - the N word, a derogatory term, was replaced with negro, which was replaced with black, which has now been replaced with African American. After a while, African American will no longer be acceptable, and we'll have to find another term. Have these name changes changed the people they describe? No, they're the same people. But how dare we offend anybody? There is a debate in California today to change the term "illegal immigrant" to "undocumented worker." This name, too has evolved over time, changing from "wetback" to "illegal immigrant." After a while, "undocumented worker" will no longer be acceptable, and we'll have to change it again. 2. Removing events from historical texts does not mean that they did not occur, and does not allow future generations to learn from our past. We could look on the past through rose-colored glasses and repeat history's mistakes, or we can learn the hard lessons and allow future generations to better mankind in the process. I took these reasons from my explanation in this thread, and they mainly apply to PC as used to change wording & naming. However, affirmative action as a form of political correctness does not work, either. The point of affirmative action is to level the playing field when it comes to the hiring/firing of skilled workers. However, if an employer is racist, than, if anything, forcing him to hire a minority worker will only further his/her resentment toward that worker, toward our government, and toward minority races in general. What's more, as I stated before, affirmative action assumes that minorities are too unskilled and/or stupid to get these jobs on their own. They take competition out of the equation, thus removing minorities' motivation to get educated so that they can get those jobs competitively instead of having jobs given to them, which calls into question the validity of their employment, no matter how skilled they are. Like I said, affirmative action is a great idea on paper, but it's just the wrong way to come at the problem of racism - trying to end racism with more racism only serves to keep racism alive instead of allowing racism to die out as the world looks more toward the content of character. Instead of leveling the playing field, affirmative action makes minorities seem inferior by taking away the vital competitive side of earning a job through qualifications. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal." I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but the content of their character. I have a dream today. -Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. This is a quote from my post in the reverse racism forum: It takes vision to end racism. It takes the courage and moral fortitude to stand up and say, "Maybe I'm wrong." In order to end racism, we've simply got to stop defining people as black or white, man or woman, and instead look at who that person is. And I'm not saying that race cannot be a part of who we are, but it is wrong to look up to one person solely because of skin color, and it is wrong to look down on another solely because of skin color. People have been attempting to justify racism for hundreds of years. During the slavery era in the American South, people used the Bible to justify slavery. Others used economic dependance. Others used "science" (experiments that were largely biased due to the desired outcome of the experimenters). Today we try to justify racism through retribution - that's all that reverse racism is, after all, just racism for the sake of retribution, in some kind of convoluted attempt to make up for past wrongs. But let's not put fancy terms like reverse racism or affirmative action on it. It's racism. Let's call it for what it is. Racism is still a problem in our world today. In most cases, it is nowhere near the extreme that it was during the 17-1800s, or during the 1950s and the Civil Rights Movement. But this doesn't make it right. We are never going to end racism with racism - two wrongs will never make it right. In order to end racism, we've got to have the courage to look at Dr. King's words and be willing to live them, each and every day of our lives. That is the one and only way to end racism in our world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted February 14, 2004 Share Posted February 14, 2004 Political correctness should be maintained on a certain level. However, I fail to see what is more offensive, "undocumented worker" or "illegal immigrant". Doesn't seem any better... As for the N word, it has indeed changed from N to negro, black and now African American. Why did they change it from black to african american int he first place? Is black so offensive? I've called my black friends, black friends and they've never been offended. It seems like there's a huge bunch of extremists on this side too. This "Affirmative Action" should be removed. It has no real point and it helps the stereotype of lazy immigrants...even if sometimes it's true... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lathain Valtiel Posted February 15, 2004 Share Posted February 15, 2004 Two wrongs do not make a right. Also, the term reverse racism should not exist, call it what it is.. racism. That would be like me calling a lie a 'slight twist of words'. That is all of my opinion on that issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted February 16, 2004 Share Posted February 16, 2004 the way affermative action is supposed to work is to give people a chance. It isn't supposed to make you pick inferior candidates, it is supposed to mean that if you have a number of equal candidates you should "probably" give the chance to someone from a minoroty group. I have no problem with this, as until minorities reach some level of "critical mass" there needs to be something to help them break through the barriers that are there. It is supposed to even the playingfield by counteracting the natural barriers that exist in people's stereotypes. Again, i think any ijustices it might occasionally cause are incredibly minor in comparisson to the injustices that happen in the other direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.