Meanwhile in Missouri - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Meanwhile in Missouri (/thread-10600.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Meanwhile in Missouri (/thread-10600.html)
Re: Meanwhile in Missouri - cardcrimson - 11-09-2015
I just find it odd that the first demand the protestors wanted was for President Wolfe to acknowledge his White Male Privilege.
http://twitter.com/BKSportsTalk/status/663194231029166080/photo/1
Re: Meanwhile in Missouri - cardcoug - 11-09-2015
(11-09-2015, 08:41 PM)ferrari link Wrote:Why don't I get it?Well I'm not sure what there is to get - black children growing up in Chicago are much, much more likely than most folks to grow up surrounded by poverty and violence. I dont think anyone disagrees about that. My opinion is that this is itself a racist feature of our society, even if their isn't some villain currently sitting in power and deciding that things should be that way because he hates black people.
If the "it" you don't get is what race and racism has to do with racial disparities in violence, then trying some source other than the black guy O'Reilly decided to put on his program is probably a good start.
Re: Meanwhile in Missouri - CornFed - 11-10-2015
A montage of contributing factors to events in Missouri:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426857/montage-14-ridiculous-explanations-mizzou-protests-tom-s-elliott
Re: Meanwhile in Missouri - Roberton3 - 11-11-2015
(11-09-2015, 04:40 PM)cardcoug link Wrote:I generally try not to step into political discussions on this board...
I should learn to follow that approach. I was just making a social-science point, and naively ignored the possibility that people could misinterpret it as a political statement (despite having had that happen to me many times before). Staying out of political discussions (at least on this board) is probably much wiser.
(11-09-2015, 04:40 PM)cardcoug link Wrote:...but I think it's worth pointing out that there is definitely some miscommunication happening here. A racial disparity that is the effect of past (explicit) racism is the paradigm case of "systematic racism", as I understand it. The whole point of talking about systematic racism is to point out that social systems can be set up such there are racist effects on people without there being some specific person (s) whose current racist attitudes (except perhaps apathy or ignorance) are responsible for those effects. It seems to me like you (Roberton3) are not using the term in this sense, so I don't think your point about sorting out the real causes is going to carry much weight with the people protesting systematic racism.
It does sound like there was some serious miscommunication, and if I misinterpreted the term, then I apologize. I hadn't heard the term "systematic racism" before (it's not a term used in my field, even among researchers who study racial disparities), and I interpreted it as meaning that the legal and/or economic systems of society discriminate based on race (e.g., apartheid in South Africa, Jim Crow in the south, etc., or some scaled-down version thereof). I just did a quick web search on the term, and didn't find a single clear definition: some people seem to be using it in exactly the way I interpreted it, while others seem to define it much more broadly. That leaves me inclined to avoid the term, and discussions where it plays a central role; if participants disagree about definitions of key terms, discussions are almost always frustrating and unproductive.
Discussions that revolve around definitions rather than facts seem to be a particular problem with racial issues. I've seen far too many debates which devolve into each side trying to define "racism" in a way that makes the opponent's position "racist" and one's own position "not racist." I want to steer far clear of that kind of debate.
(11-09-2015, 04:40 PM)cardcoug link Wrote:You're obviously right that people should pay careful attention to exactly what causes a given disparity, but i dont think we should withhold the term "racist" until we find a confederate flag flying bigot behind the scenes. If black people are getting harsher sentences than white people for the same crime (they are), that is racist. End of story. Finding out exactly why that is true is the most important step in fixing the problem, but I can't imagine a cause for this effect that would make it not racist.
Again, this turns on the definition of "racist." If the definition of racism includes any racial disparity regardless of cause, then obviously any racial disparity is proof of racism (in that case, it's a tautology). Under other reasonable definitions, that's not obvious, and (depending on the definition) might not be true. And, as I said above, I don't find discussions that revolve around varying definitions to be at all useful.
I think the key points in what you wrote are "...people should pay careful attention to exactly what causes a given disparity" and "Finding out exactly why that is true is the most important step in fixing the problem..." If disparities in sentencing arise because jurors are discriminating on the basis of race, the path to fixing the problem is quite different than if the disparities arise because poor people can only afford low-quality lawyers (picking just two of the many possible explanations, for the sake of example). And that's true regardless of what your definition of racism is.Â
But in my experience, many people jump to conclusions that aren't supported by any hard evidence (and, in many cases, are directly contradicted by hard evidence) and as a result, push for actions that won't solve the problem (and may make it worse) -- a phenomenon which seems particularly common in the context of racial disparities, but by no means unique to that context. What I haven't figured out yet is how to point out the evidence (or lack thereof) in such situations, without being perceived as having a political agenda, and without having the discussion devolve into unproductive debates about the definition of "racism" or some similar term.
Re: Meanwhile in Missouri - Roberton3 - 11-11-2015
In a related issue (though one where the football team is not involved -- at least not yet), have folks kept up with the events at Yale? See http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-new-intolerance-of-student-activism-at-yale/414810/
Much of it is very troubling for anyone who values universities as centers of open intellectual inquiry and debate.
Re: Meanwhile in Missouri - Mick - 11-11-2015
(11-11-2015, 12:57 PM)Roberton3 link Wrote:In a related issue (though one where the football team is not involved -- at least not yet), have folks kept up with the events at Yale? See http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-new-intolerance-of-student-activism-at-yale/414810/
Much of it is very troubling for anyone who values universities as centers of open intellectual inquiry and debate.
I don't remember a time when that was really true. Countercultural, sure. Differences of opinion? Oh yeah. Respect for other points of view, leading to "open intellectual inquiry and debate?" No.
Re: Meanwhile in Missouri - TreesAndBirds - 11-12-2015
A student athlete who is much happier with his school and its administration. Good for PSU for engendering this type of feeling.
http://delgrecowilson.com/2015/08/15/d-jay-newbill-an-open-thank-you-letter-to-psu-president-ad-and-head-coach/
Re: Meanwhile in Missouri - Roberton3 - 11-12-2015
(11-11-2015, 11:34 PM)Mick link Wrote:[quote author=Roberton3 link=topic=13558.msg140950#msg140950 date=1447271823]
In a related issue (though one where the football team is not involved -- at least not yet), have folks kept up with the events at Yale? See http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-new-intolerance-of-student-activism-at-yale/414810/
Much of it is very troubling for anyone who values universities as centers of open intellectual inquiry and debate.
I don't remember a time when that was really true. Countercultural, sure. Differences of opinion? Oh yeah. Respect for other points of view, leading to "open intellectual inquiry and debate?" No.
[/quote]
Perhaps I'm being naive and overly idealistic, but I think you're being too cynical. I can certainly say that the atmosphere in academia feels much less open to differing ideas now than it did when I was a student, or when I started as a professor.
That said, I should probably let this drop. We've wandered fairly far off-topic (even relative to the CardBoard norm).
Re: Meanwhile in Missouri - CTcard - 11-12-2015
Quote:[quote author=Mick]
I don't remember a time when that was really true. Countercultural, sure. Differences of opinion? Oh yeah. Respect for other points of view, leading to "open intellectual inquiry and debate?" No.
Perhaps I'm being naive and overly idealistic, but I think you're being too cynical. I can certainly say that the atmosphere in academia feels much less open to differing ideas now than it did when I was a student, or when I started as a professor.
That said, I should probably let this drop. We've wandered fairly far off-topic (even relative to the CardBoard norm).
[/quote]
I don't see any real reason to drop it. Since we generically are talking about college sports, and since a large fraction of Stanford fans are graduates of a leading university - it seems the state of universities today is a reasonable place to diverge to.
The danger about the "things sure have changed" argument is that we ourselves have changed, and thus our perspective. That is particularly true if you have changed your role (undergrad vs grad vs faculty), but is also true even if you have just gotten older.
My own take is that while "respect for other points of view" has never really been a strong point (but probably better in academia than elsewhere), "open intellectual inquiry and debate" really has been. In most fields I believe it still is. The fields in the news, however, are not mine - and looking from afar I can never quite tell how much is real and how much the hysteria of the moment and/or the media. [i.e. we had plenty of protesters back when I was a student, both crazy and reasoned. For the most part, people simply didn't pay much attention to the crazy ones.]
Re: Meanwhile in Missouri - martyup - 11-12-2015
Turns out that the instigator of the protest isn't so oppressed after all.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/11/mizzou-hunger-striker-claims-hes-oppressed-rips-white-privilege-comes-from-family-worth-20-million/
![[Image: rich-kid-whitey.jpg]](http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/rich-kid-whitey.jpg)
Re: Meanwhile in Missouri - Rally - 11-12-2015
At some point it just becomes ridiculous, don't you think?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/11/12/university-missouri-does-not-accept-professor-resignation-over-email-flap/?vgnextrefresh=1&intcmp=hpbt1
Re: Meanwhile in Missouri - martyup - 11-12-2015
(11-12-2015, 01:24 PM)ferrari link Wrote:At some point it just becomes ridiculous, don't you think?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/11/12/university-missouri-does-not-accept-professor-resignation-over-email-flap/?vgnextrefresh=1&intcmp=hpbt1
Quote:The school at the focal point of the current crisis, the University of Missouri, hired an interim system president on Thursday afternoon. Mike Middleton previously attended Missouri as a student and also served as a faculty member and administrator. Middleton, who is black, said he felt marginalized "every day" in each of those roles.
"It's so subtle," Middleton said. "I think women understand it. I think people with a sexual orientation that is not a male-centered perspective on sexuality understand it. I think other people of color understand it. I think folks in power, in the majority, who have never lived it and have never experienced it have difficult understanding it the way those of us who have been minoritized do.
"But it is just the feeling of not being heard, not being respected," he said. "Being placed at the margins of what's really happening in the world. And it happens inadvertently. Nobody is really to blame for this."
Re: Meanwhile in Missouri - Mick - 11-12-2015
(11-12-2015, 11:49 AM)martyup link Wrote:Turns out that the instigator of the protest isn't so oppressed after all.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/11/mizzou-hunger-striker-claims-hes-oppressed-rips-white-privilege-comes-from-family-worth-20-million/
Where can I get so repressed?
Re: Meanwhile in Missouri - burger - 11-12-2015
(11-12-2015, 11:49 AM)martyup link Wrote:Turns out that the instigator of the protest isn't so oppressed after all.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/11/mizzou-hunger-striker-claims-hes-oppressed-rips-white-privilege-comes-from-family-worth-20-million/
A serious question: why is at somehow inconsistent for a rich person to protest racial discrimination? Is there a requirement that every person speaking out against a perceived injustice be personally affected?Â
Re: Meanwhile in Missouri - washingtonismoney - 11-12-2015
As is well-known, rich black people never face racial discrimination.
http://www.gq.com/story/thabo-sefolosha-nypd-assault
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/11/06/i-taught-my-black-kids-that-their-elite-upbringing-would-protect-them-from-discrimination-i-was-wrong/
Re: Meanwhile in Missouri - Rally - 11-12-2015
Not Missouri but next demands coming. This time it's fre tuition and loan forgiveness.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/11/12/cavuto-interviews-college-protest-organizer-one-percent-can-afford-cover-free-tuition
Re: Meanwhile in Missouri - Mick - 11-12-2015
(11-12-2015, 02:51 PM)burger link Wrote:[quote author=martyup link=topic=13558.msg141071#msg141071 date=1447354165]
Turns out that the instigator of the protest isn't so oppressed after all.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/11/mizzou-hunger-striker-claims-hes-oppressed-rips-white-privilege-comes-from-family-worth-20-million/
A serious question: why is at somehow inconsistent for a rich person to protest racial discrimination? Is there a requirement that every person speaking out against a perceived injustice be personally affected?
[/quote]
Probably because the protestors as a group seem convinced that unless one is poor and marginalized, one cannot understand their misery. So admit that white privilege, dammit.
Re: Meanwhile in Missouri - burger - 11-12-2015
(11-12-2015, 02:56 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:As is well-known, rich black people never face racial discrimination.
http://www.gq.com/story/thabo-sefolosha-nypd-assault
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/11/06/i-taught-my-black-kids-that-their-elite-upbringing-would-protect-them-from-discrimination-i-was-wrong/
I was going to mention that, too, but I thought I'd stick with the worst-case scenario (at least as appearances go).
Re: Meanwhile in Missouri - washingtonismoney - 11-12-2015
Also, as is equally well-known, the rules of protesting mean that you can never protest in solidarity of another social group, if you yourself are part of a privileged social group.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Reeb
Re: Meanwhile in Missouri - fullmetal - 11-12-2015
Being rich and being a professional athlete didn't protect James Blake.