General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsProfessor Meets World: Saida Grundy and her comments about white college men
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/05/14/what-happens-when-scholars-discuss-potentially-controversial-ideas-outside-bubblesThe situation and others like it raise important questions for scholars, regardless of whether they agree with Grundy. Among the questions: What, if anything, should they keep in mind when discussing potentially controversial ideas in public forums? In other words, what should scholars expect to happen when they leave the bubble of their discipline and, more broadly, of academe?
I think sociologists who study race and gender found the comments fairly uncontroversial, given that white males are overrepresented in a variety of different pathological behaviors, some of which take place on college campuses, such as binge drinking and accusations of sexual assault, said Matthew Hughey, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Connecticut whos been following Grundys case, and who responded to a request for comment on it through the American Sociological Association. (The association declined comment.) Her tweet in and of itself was grounded in empirical social scientific findings over the last half century.
So why the controversy, which resulted in twin statements from both Grundy and Boston University, expressing regret over her remarks? What ruffles peoples feathers is that they arent aware of the social scientific evidence, and/or theyre simply hostile to the idea of white masculinity being scrutinized, Hughey said. He deemed much of the backlash against Grundy to be based on false equivalencies, or the idea that her statements were as bad as white male professors commenting similarly on a traditionally disempowered group, such as black women.
Of course, a likely minority of those who sounded off against Grundy this week are aware of the academic arguments against false equivalencies. So whose job is it to help bridge the gap between academics and the public, minimizing miscommunication across spheres? Hughey said professors have a right and perhaps a duty to be radical in its purest sense -- getting at the root of a problem and illuminating it for others. At the same time, he said, scholars from historically marginalized perspectives and backgrounds, such as Grundy, who is black, have to be particularly careful about how they present their work. That means leading with empirical data, instead of speaking as if it is opinion or a personal brainchild, he said.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)If you're going to make controversial and, frankly, disparaging remarks about a single demographic (to which you do no belong) then a) have your supporting data at hand and b) don't be stupid enough to launch your comments on social media.
mythology
(9,527 posts)One of many reasons I avoid Twitter.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)From the article linked in the OP:
Academic discussions in an academic setting are generally safe and never rise above (or below) the level of an intellectual exercise. When you blast it out over the 'net, the chances of being skewered by a bunch of trolling, emotional, irrational knuckleheads increases exponentially.
Number23
(24,544 posts)was not because they were untrue but because they challenge the white, male patriarchy in this society.
I think sociologists who study race and gender found the comments fairly uncontroversial, given that white males are overrepresented in a variety of different pathological behaviors, some of which take place on college campuses, such as binge drinking and accusations of sexual assault, said Matthew Hughey, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Connecticut whos been following Grundys case, and who responded to a request for comment on it through the American Sociological Association. (The association declined comment.) Her tweet in and of itself was grounded in empirical social scientific findings over the last half century.
...At the same time, he said, scholars from historically marginalized perspectives and backgrounds, such as Grundy, who is black, have to be particularly careful about how they present their work.
There was nothing inaccurate about her tweets. This, once again, comes down to the "tone" issue of how people from minority groups should speak to or about those in the majority, facts and truth be damned.
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)...of programs targeting binge drinking and sexual on campus.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)might make it particularly true. The word "pathological" is used, and if it's happening frequently despite decades of attempts to stop it, that seems pretty true.
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)Pathology is a metaphor in this case and a weak one at that.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)And, considering I made my point very clear, I'll let it go.
Number23
(24,544 posts)What you typed:
If you're going to make controversial and, frankly, disparaging remarks about a single demographic (to which you do no belong) then a) have your supporting data at hand and b) don't be stupid enough to launch your comments on social media.
And I noted that the only reason they were "controversial" - to use YOUR phrase - is not because they are untrue but because they apparently challenge the white male power structure in this country.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)- "Controversial" wasn't my phrase; it was used multiple times in the article quoted in the OP.
- Being untrue is not an essential ingredient for controversy.
As stated quite clearly in the article, "I think sociologists who study race and gender found the comments fairly uncontroversial, given that white males are overrepresented in a variety of different pathological behaviors, some of which take place on college campuses. Okay, nothing wrong with that. There's data to support it, so discuss on.
The problem, as I stated and you quoted me, was saying this in social media. Twitter for chrissakes? Really? What did she think would happen when she tears into roughly 50% of the student body on the campus she's about to join, pointing out their pathological deficiencies and labeling them as "a problem population." You don't have to be white, male, or somehow part of the power structure to take offense when that kind of thing is said about you in social media. She wasn't making an academic observation; she was making social commentary. There's a world of difference.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Which is probably why so many people who know the most about this area have come to her defence while others who have likely never studied this had such a knee jerk response.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)1) I think she was making social commentary on the basis of academic evidence. AGREED
2) Which is probably why so many people who know the most about this area have come to her defence AGREED
3) while others who have likely never studied this had such a knee jerk response. And these people would have no idea who she is had she not tweeted it out.
And, I will admit that it's likely that a lot of those who took offense don't like some young assistant professor eroding their power structure.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)amongst college age black men and referred to them as a "problem population" it would have been perceived (certainly by me) as per se evidence of hostility towards young black men as a group and seen as giving rise to a hostile learning environment.
Or, if an Israeli professor had referred to Palestinians or Arabs as a "problem population."
Would have been more pernicious than is the case here? Absolutely, due to the privileged/oppressed power group dynamics.
But, professors are not only scholars and researchers and activists, they're supposed to be educators. Had the comments been limited to "white male masculinity" then you're talking about a concept that can be addressed. But when you refer to them as a group as a "problem population" that is extremely corrosive to the learning environment. It's stating that they--and not the culture they grow up in--are the problem. Instead of attacking the cultural forces that divide everyone, it feeds into that dynamic.
Why would a member of a "problem population" have any expectation that a professor would be respectful towards them and take an interest in helping educate them?
Writing "white men suck" is not going to help the cause of racial equality and social justice.
Also glossed over his her statement that she tries to discriminate against white business owners during MLK Jr. week.
To me, it seems pretty clear that this professor harbors animosity towards white people, especially white men. Perfectly understandable given the reality of our society and what she and other black women have had to experience in it. Certainly not a threat to white men like myself.
At the same time, could she promote a learning environment that's respectful towards all students, regardless of their race and gender? I would guess not.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)demographic. if we could ONLY start down this path to actually address. get beyond the first few words, at the least (which may be the twitter issue, i do not use twitter), but geez greek. how are we suppose to dance this dance. i just said it in yet ANOTHER way, to maybe hit a lightbulb. at a certain point, we have to admit that it is the actual refusal for information from women, for any reason and no reason, that can be mustered.
if all else fails, start with the violent, vulgar, rape and death fantasies.
i have two sons. good, smart, aware, white males being raised in this shit.
love them with all my heart
have been with them to bring balance, reason, thought, on the issue of white privileged males.
damn, it is old.
and it is damn old me having to constantly say.... men do not get to shut me up one way or another.
ALL the fuckin time in life. different ways. for different reasons.
all the time.
i am on these young mens side. they are my sons and nephews. i am here for 'em. this is not easy and it is such a fucked up path we create for them.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)that demographic grows up.
the patriarchy, and racism, are something we all need to tackle together. The patriarchy is a problem for your boys, as you have said.
But, finger pointing at people, based on their surface characteristics, how does that help? To me it seems to legitimize the idea that there are fundamental differences and us vs them.
I think an educator has a heightened obligation to be inclusive and respectful--that's how this shit goes away.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)with the best interest for the health of our boys.
it will result in the lives of our girls.
yet, ... ultimately help the boys.
win win win
and not so damn hard.
Sobax
(110 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)college campuses based on empirical evidence and designating a group a "problem population" who have been historically discriminated against in every conceivable way out of a population of 300 million people and doesn't take any of that historical and present day disadvantage into consideration.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Sobax
(110 posts)Was that 60% of them were against white males, which would mean they are actually underrepresented. Also remember that these are just accusations, not actual confirmed assaults. A number of them will be false.
Number23
(24,544 posts)I can understand why I smelled something very foul and trolly about your post which was corroborated when I saw your participation in this thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026696801#post4
I mean, really. How many white men do you think there are in America, let alone on college campuses for a whopping 60% of sexual assault claims against them to make them "underrepresented?"
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)He would not be pleased.
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,879 posts)It's a Chappelle Show Character -
[Paul Mooney predicts the future as "Negrodamus"]
Audience Member: Negrodamus, will Arsenio Hall ever have a show again?
Negrodamus: Yes. Arsenio Hall will have a new show called "Good Morning, Black America". It will be played at noon throughout the country.
In my next life - I want to be the second coming of Paul Mooney!
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)But the problem with that comment wasn't just the argument, which is fairly benign and accurate, it was the context in which it was presented. Part of that is the fault of Ms. Grundy herself and part of is the fault of the person who put her twitter quotes together - set in that context it is less a dispassionate description of a college class and more an indictment of that class.
Bryant
gollygee
(22,336 posts)NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)"He deemed much of the backlash against Grundy to be based on false equivalencies, or the idea that her statements were as bad as white male professors commenting similarly on a traditionally disempowered group, such as black women. "
romanic
(2,841 posts)Of professors being "radical". Professors are responsible for teaching thier students relevant information regarding the subjects their teaching, not to indoctrinate these young kids. Professors (on both sides)should keep thier socio-political opinions to themselves and out of the classroom to allow thier students to develop their own opinions in student clubs or public seminars.
As for Grundy herself, she got an important lesson in saying something that could incense a group of people outside of the "bubble" known as the college campus. Students who hold similar views may also learn that the hard way once their done with college and out into the actual real world.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)She has to be "racial" and talk about race.
hack89
(39,171 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)which is what the article says, that people of color are expected to be particularly careful with their tone, even if what they're saying is not controversial in their field of study.
(Or see Number23's reply - #9 - above.)
hack89
(39,171 posts)it is the nature of the beast. It both amplifies and removes nuance. The likelihood of triggering an emotional backlash is high. We see it on DU all the time - the perpetual outraged waiting to jump down some poster's throat.
it's the job of professors to take people out of their comfort zone, and make people think.
hack89
(39,171 posts)that is what learning is about. But that is a setting with lots of face time, willing participants and structure that provides context to the teachers remarks. Dropping a short provocative tweet on a potentially large and unsuspecting audience with no context to add nuance is not educating people - it is to provoke an emotional response.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Freedom of speech isn't just for Charlie Hebo and Pam Geller.
I think she did it to create discussion, and it's been successful. I've read several news articles about it.
hack89
(39,171 posts)if she is willing to live with the consequences of her comments. Something tells me, however, that she did not fully consider the potential reaction she has received.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Since what she said is not controversisal in the world of social scientists, she might not have realized how people outside of academia would respond. But I hope academics won't censor themselves.
hack89
(39,171 posts)sometimes it takes a few hard knocks to learn the lessons.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)me
and still. i do not shut up
hack89
(39,171 posts)but you also understand and accept the consequences of speaking up.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i will learn.
ok. and i do accept the consequences and have had it all thrown my way.
you are ok with that?
hack89
(39,171 posts)sorry if I gave you that impression.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Calling a demographic group a "problem population" based on race and gender can have factual support. No one in possession of the data can argue otherwise (this just in: young males of any race often behave horribly). Pointing that out in 140 character snippets on social media, however, isn't instruction, it's trolling.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)or at least the start of discussion, and it has generated a great deal of discussion.
mythology
(9,527 posts)And how much is people yelling past each other?
I'm guessing more the latter.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)of an opponent's argument.
Tone© or Tone®. I had a round one on my stereo in the 60s. A WW II Japanese cruiser was called the Tone. There was once Coppertone.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)romanic
(2,841 posts)I said "radical". Her tweets would be deemed radical by many outside of a select few academic circles.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)But a couple of things - what she said isn't actuall radical. It's established and non-controversial among social scientists, as explained in the article. And even then, I think it's good for professors to challenge people and make them thing. Milquetoast professors don't teach much. They should be a bit radical.
romanic
(2,841 posts)Saying a demographic of people is a "problem" doesn't seem to challenge anybody to think different, let alone that actual demographic to make them "think". And let's be honest, "social scientists" represent a small tiny little portion in society itself. That was one of the points in the article, college itself is a "bubble" separated from the rest of the world.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)which was "Why is white America so reluctant to identify white college males as a problem population"
recognizing that we bring a bit of ourselves into how we read things, is that it sounded to me like she was comparing how African American young men are identified by white America as a problem population, yet she works on a college campus where there are problems with sexual assualts and binge drinking, yet white America doesn't have similar criticisms of white college men that they have of similarly-aged African American men. The fact that young black men are being killed, and are being seen as "thugs" regardless of level of criminal activity because of how they're viewed as a group, has been in the news a lot. I took her comments as being written within that context.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)wherein you disparage an entire demographic group, you've made a really profound mistake, especially if you're an educator whose job mandates respectful and inclusive behavior towards that group.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)It's twitter, so there isn't space for clarification.
Also, depending on what was trending on Twitter that day, it might have been really obvious when the Tweet actually happened. Tweets happen in the moment. They aren't really meant to be collected and read out of context at another time.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)were looking to collect a scalp, but twitter is a form of publication just like academic journals are, just like news stories and magazine articles are.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)That's just silly.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)it's a different format, but it's publication
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)it was a fuckin game to shut her up.
this one, one may say, .... she should have said.
that is not the point. there is alwyas this fuckin sophmoric reaction.
and looking and what and how she said it, when it is fact, and ANY one can put a second of thought into this and know exactly what she is saying
purposeful blindness to lash out/shut up
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)But you and I are reading her stuff very differently.
I mean, take this statement:
I mean, really? That's not a criticism of structural racism. It's someone saying they discriminate based on race, during MLK week.
Cold hard fact that racism and patriarchy won't go away unless the 'problem populations' buy into making them go away. yeah, they should know better, but they don't, so you gotta treat them like human beings and get them to listen. If it's diatribes instead of dialogue, well then this shit just stays the same.
I listen to you, and to all of the feminist, African-American posters here on race and patriarchy.
Someone like this prof? Nope, tuning her out, I don't care what she has to say, just as she has no interest in people like me learning from what she has to say. Someone is gonna write me off as a human being because of what I was born as, then there's a mighty big pile of shits I will not give regarding what they have to say about folks like me. She's free to dislike white people and especially white men--heck it's more than understandable given reality of society. But, that still means she does not get through my filter.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)it regularly.
you know, toward sexist companies. women hating companies.
one week a year she is bringing awareness to us, the power and control of white over all others, thru the $.
and you have a problem with the statement.
this is my point, and yours, too. and yes. even on this, we agree. we are seeing it so differently
so. let me ask. are you seeing it thru white, and/or male eyes?
cause i know often, the world view is man, when i shift and look thru my woman eyes, the view is different.
i now define to my boys. that comment, is thru male view. the only way i laugh at that joke, is if i look at it from YOUR eyes. cause from a womans eye, there is no humor in it.
i already know you and i see differently on some thoughts. and i am cool, cause you make me think, and help me to define.
so thank you always.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)point of view, I'm still seeing things with my own eyes, just doing so while imagining how they would see it.
I can't know.
Interesting that you point out that you don't give your money to sexist, woman-hating companies.
She's saying that she's doing it just based on the color of the business owner. Not how those businesses respect the community, or treat their employees, or how responsibly they source their goods.
Most corporations have no color. Is Citibank less racist because its biggest shareholder is an Arab than the local hardware store owner?
Racism is behavior, not the color of one's skin.
Also, she's complaining about most businesses being white owned in non-diverse places like Ann Arbor or Boston? Like complaining that all the businesses in Mexico City are owned by Latinos.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)we are so conditioned to see it only thru mens eyes. it took fuckin years, decades, almost a lifetime, to realize i needed to look thru my eyes. a womans. not mans eyes.
so, men say they cannot see thru any other eyes. but most all of us see only thru mens. and that is the real issue. problem. why so many women support patriarchy. if we are so conditioned to see our lives, from a mans view? then why is the reverse not possible.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Women are taught to see the world through men's eyes, but then they have their own experiences and their own true eyes. They can be bi-visual
We're taught to see the world the same way we actually see it. So, there's nothing in our experience or our enculturation that gives us the additional perspective.
So, we can try, but at the end of the day, we are only imagining what things would look like through other eyes.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)to do that also.
or else, we will continue as we are going.
my niece, who has been so abused, all her life. is now posting for the "good" man thru religion. do you KNOW how much i want to just shake her and tell her how religion that she is demanding of men, is what has been abusing her for two and a half decades?
it is literally crazy to me.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to challenge themselves to be bi-visual.
I don't see it as a choice, really. We can be open-minded, we can try to be as fair as possible, we can try to imagine how others are seeing it.
But, we just don't know the way you do. Because it is a choice for us.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)with women. they are good. but... not so good, too.
when the comic does that rape joke, is your mind flashing, hmmmmm. how would a women hear this.
it really is not hard.
and women have to go thru the same process. cause. the reality. we grow up see from mens view.
i was 20 and a lightbulb went off. i really saw myself BELOW man. i had normal upbringing, late 70's early 80's. and the culture dictated i see my life from mans eye.
i had to learn, too
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)cause woman is adult. adult means old. god knows women are not allowed to be adult, old or she is not sexual or sexy.
ya know
simple things i had to learn.
the more i realized, the easier it became
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)now i am just playing with you
jumping off du
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)youth.
not even a chuckle.
my reaction to it was such, i have to ask, am i seeing this wrong.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)had a few in my college days. But you must construct and foster a good learning environment. She hasn't.
I know very little about Twitter, but I am continuously amazed how "those in the social media know" keep stepping in it. So she started a discussion. That approach is academic "streaking", and not a very profound one. It is also a method being rapidly cheapened, since every Tom, Dick, and Harriet is doing it. I guess it is a consequent result of the Celebrity Culture overtaking other forms of communication and institutions.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)She got upset with someone one time that we are aware of on Facebook. But everyone loses their temper sometimes. A problem African American women have is that if they are seen to lose their temper, they get seen through the "angry black woman" stereotype. She doesn't necessarily have a worse temper than the average professor.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)While any teacher is advised to keep their outbursts to a minimum, the stuff floated out on Facebook/Twitter has become in our culture the stuff of the "author" and not necessarily an angry remark or two.
Old mass media has lost its legitimizing power, and new media searches for a vacuum.
Is she still employed at BU? I think she might benefit from a classroom of diligent, enthusiastic students who have a different take on things.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)is one thing she said on Facebook. I don't see every display of anger the same way. "Temper" to me is going too far. There are times where anger is justified. I don't care if it's on social media or where, one display of her flaring up and going to far is not enough to assume her temper is so bad she shouldn't teach.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)presenting it
or, the way women are so often addressed, simply for speaking.
every one of these experiences that get called out, out loud, brings more awareness.
keep on, keeping on.
1939
(1,683 posts)If Prof Grundy thinks that binge drinking and sexual assaults are limited to white male college students, she never went to a black fraternity party as an undergraduate. Binge drinking and sexual assaults are common to most 18-24 year old men of any race or nationality..
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)You are right: Every one does it, but once you indulge the safer narrative, then you can construct a hierarchy of pain, even indifference, to the same transgressions when they don't fit the mold, but are close enough. Consider the discussion further down this thread. I really hope she didn't say "Go cry somewhere."
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)statement and facts certainly does not play out in the manner. especially if you are woman. especially if you are a black woman.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)I mean, she's in a Boston University, not Birmingham.
Sobax
(110 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I've been to several. I do not recall ever seeing a keg.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)1939
(1,683 posts)at a "traditionally black" college (Virginia State), malt liquor and wine appeared to be the beverages of choice. though I was a bit older than the undergrads and lived off campus. My army colleagues from Hampton, North Carolina A&T, and Morgan State shared a lot of war stories about undergrad life, so I don't think there is that much difference between white and black undergrads..
B2G
(9,766 posts)'Go cry somewhere': Hateful words of black Boston University professor to a white rape survivor written on Facebook three months before she claimed white men are 'THE problem for America's colleges'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3086976/Go-cry-Hateful-words-black-Boston-University-professor-white-rape-survivor-written-Facebook-three-months-claimed-white-men-problem-America-s-colleges.html
It looks like she was writing about white privilege and someone said that she had not benefited from white privilege because she was a rape survivor. That apparently led to an angry exchange between them. But of course this is the Daily Mail, so the article says she doesn't like white rape survivors in general, because of course an angry exchange with one white privilege denying rape survivor over her denial of white privilege equals dislike of all white rape survivors. /sarcasm
B2G
(9,766 posts)This woman has no business being in a classroom.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)entitlement, hypocrisy and affirmation of what is being discussed?
priceless....
B2G
(9,766 posts)The rape survivor? What makes her a fuckwad?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)which it appears i did not read it correctly. so, i can not really delete, because i stand with my point, understanding i read gollygee's post incorrectly.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Confusion and gross insult, all wrapped into one. And fast too.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)enough. she often is not nice enough.
some fuckwad throse a jab at her being raped, and she just did not consider his feelings in her reply. really? that?
honey/vinager
head bowed, eyes down (dont dare make eye contact, might look like confidence)
passive/timid
may i speak now, sir?
am i wrong?
B2G
(9,766 posts)"some fuckwad throse a jab at her being raped, and she just did not consider his feelings in her reply"
WTF does that even mean?
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Dr. Grundy (is she a Dr? She's a professor but not all are.) had a Facebook post about white privilege. A white woman said she hadn't benefitted from white privilege because she was a rape victim. The two had what looks like a nasty Facebook argument.
Anyway, I think Sea though that the professor was a rape victim, and that someone elsehad said "Go cry about it" to her. But no, it's the professor who said that. And nobody is perfect. I'm comfortable recognizing that Dr. Grundy was insensitive on Facebook, but still thinking her tweets were OK. I also don't know how nasty the other woman in the Facebook war was. The Daily Mail isn't necessarily going to give a balanced picture of what happened.
B2G
(9,766 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)which as I said wouldn't necessarily give a balanced picture. It's the Daily Mail.
B2G
(9,766 posts)I think this lady has issues. You are free to disagree.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)All you know is what you've been shown. And that article was obviously a hit piece. It wasn't balanced.
B2G
(9,766 posts)Go figure.
Based on her Tweets and now this, it surprises me not at all. Like I said, feel free to draw a different conclusion, but I think I have ample evidence to form my opinion here.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)But whatever.
B2G
(9,766 posts)If you're not a minority, you can't possibly be a victim.
Classic case of tunnel vision due to an agenda.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Disgusting assumptions.
B2G
(9,766 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)In fact, what I've done is to not assume and question the narrative.
If you're not a minority, you can't possibly be a victim.
Classic case of tunnel vision due to an agenda.
That is a HUGE assumption. You assume negative intent and some agenda without knowing her. All I've done is give her some level of benefit of the doubt. Innocent until proven guilty.
B2G
(9,766 posts)Do you really think she doesn't have an agenda?
My daughter, who minored in women's studies, said she'd never sign up for one of her classes.
I've learned that some on here worship academics and professors like Demi-Gods who can never be wrong.
Believe me i don't think Grundy is going to be hurt because someone is making judgment on words she posted for the entire internet to scrutinize.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Read the comments after the article. It's DU re-visited!
Why is it assumed that when a white person disagrees with the potus that they must be a racist?
Why is it when non-whites dress in 'white-face' it is considered freedom of expression, but when whites dress in 'black-face' they are considered a racist?
Why were the young men at OU called racists for singing a song when black leaders call whites 'honky', 'hymie', etc. are heralded for their courage?
It is assumed she is a racist based on her statements. If we cannot define her as a racist based on her statements why are white people consistently called racists for making similar statements?
You don't get to have it both ways .... either she made racist statements which makes her a racist or her thoughts/statements cannot be used to define her as a racist .... but that means EVERY individual must be provided the same.
willrich354 > Joseph Colorado 5 days ago
Racism= Power + Prejudice. This is exactly the problem the article and commentators are highlighting: that often the precise language or jargon in academia doesn't translate perfectly to non-academic audiences. Non-whites don't have the same social, political, or economic power writ-large to impose any negative views of whites on society. On the other hand white people have 500+ year old social, political, and economic systems that allow their prejudices to be carried out.
We can call her comments prejudice perhaps, but they don't have the same social power that a white male's voice may have if he said the inverse of her statement. Her tone or statement may be wrong but it is qualitatively different than the OU men you mentioned.
AngusMcP > willrich354 5 days ago
I disagree. While racism can be structural, it can also be individual. And certainly as a tenure-track professor, Grundy has a lot more power than some random undergraduates at a midwestern cow college.
willrich354 > AngusMcP 4 days ago
Your disagreement doesn't make it less true. Individual action only matters within the social/structural context that it happens in. There is copious amounts of research that details the acute lack of power that scholars of color, especially black women/queer folk, have in the academy in relation to their "random undergrads" because academic institutions tend to uphold these students' views when conflict arises (ooo see, there's power again).
AssociateProfessor > willrich354 5 days ago
Again with the spurious definition of "racism". I reject the definition of racism as prejudice only with power. That definition is created whole-cloth to clothe the racist speech of certain groups with a robe of respectability, and is itself a racist double standard.
willrich354 > AssociateProfessor 4 days ago
Spurious? As I stated to the person above, your rejection doesn't make the definition of the concept any less true. The white (also themselves racist) sociologists/anthropologists who coined the term in the early 20th century explicitly created it to describe the systematic(!), wide-reaching(!) abuse of Jewish people in Europe and America. The -ism at the end of the world implies that it is an system or state of being similar to capitalism, sexism, fascism. Fascism didn't work both ways, neither does sexism, they primarily benefited one class of people. So sorry It's not black people's/ black academics' fault that you haven't read about the history of the term to know what it means. Now go tell a physicists that you reject their definition of an electron or gravity.
Sounds really familiar!
Sobax
(110 posts)But sociologists and anthropologists don't have some special kind of mandate to redefine the words we all already use.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)because from my understanding, people of color have always used the word "racism" this way. One of the ways racism is embedded in our culture is in how words are used. White people, and largely white men, write dictionaries. So white men get to control the language. I rejet that.
Sobax
(110 posts)The rest of us will just continue using the word in the correct manner. There's no reason why anyone should accept your attempts to control the language.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)I reject that as well.
Sociologists are better authorities on a word used to describe a social construct than you are. And dictionaries only describe how words are used (mainly by white men.) They don't say what is "correct." If people (and mainly white men) start using a word differently, the dictionary will change the definiton to match how they are using it, with no concern over what is "correct."
Sobax
(110 posts)But accept how people of color use them?
How do you objectively decide which the "correct" version is?
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Part of privilege is not seeing and understanding racism. If you are being actively hurt by something, you have to see it. So yes I give their definition weight over that of white men.
But in this case, I am preferring the way sociologists use the term since this is an area of their study and expertise. And white male sociologists use the term this way too.
Sobax
(110 posts)How can you know who is being affected by racism before you've even explained how and why you've defined it?
gollygee
(22,336 posts)then you need to go back to school or read some books or something.
Sobax
(110 posts)I need to know whether to use the white man definition or the people of color definition of racism, and I need to know why one is more "correct" than the other.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)and see what is happening around you.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Then, I read this:
So it is not how Black folks use/understand the word/phenomena; but, rather, how academics use/understand the word/phenomena.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Sobax
(110 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Why adopt the language of climatologist with respect to climate change ... they just study and report on their observations for a living. Whether the lay-person chooses to up-date their use of language to reflect the language of the academics is merely a matter of choosing enlightenment over ignorance.
Sobax
(110 posts)I'm not going to change how I use it. It doesn't matter what they do for a living or how many letters they have after their name. It doesn't give them the right to manipulate our language.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Sobax
(110 posts)After speaking to some of these social scientists, it's patently obvious to me that they know about as much about the subject as I do.
Just because I don't accept their manipulation of my language, it doesn't make me ignorant.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Sobax
(110 posts)It's not something I'd waste time doing myself, because it's not worth the paper it's written on. We're not discussing nuclear physics here.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Now. Excuse me while I check my emails. I am concerned that Stephen Hawking has yet to respond to my discussion of theoretical physics ... after all, I have read a comic book or two, AND I have seen every episode of The Big Bang Theory!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)with respect to climate change ... Right?
Sobax
(110 posts)They don't have a special mandate to redefine words either. If they want to use their own terminology within their own field then that's their business, but they shouldn't expect the general public to go along with that.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)to more accurately define the phenomena is reserved to ALL scientists.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)but people are surprised when we don't assume every member of the Democratic Party cares about social justice issues.
ismnotwasm
(42,008 posts)Damn
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Rmp erased them and locked her page. The moment she starts teaching she'll get straight zeros. Any prospective student who googled her will see this and the hundreds of articles about her opinions. I wonder how many people will take her classes after word spreads around campus.
Her position is probably untenable.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Students taking her courses won't probably be surprised by this. I think she'll be fine.
Response to gollygee (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.