Saturday, February 27, 2021



Dear Students: You Have No Right Not to Be Offended

The latest insanity from the Left (or one of the latest insanities, at least; they seem to compound daily) is that a group of Harvard students and faculty are demanding the university rescind degrees awarded to Ted Cruz, Kayleigh McEnany, and other conservatives and “Trump allies.” Why? Because said students and faculty members disagree with them about politics. Because they find their views to be “offensive.”

Where in the world did people get the notion that they can cancel others just because they offend them? Are the would-be cancelers oblivious to the fact that the Constitution expressly protects freedom of speech while offering not one word about freedom from offense?

Yes, they probably are. As to why they didn’t learn that, and where they got this idea that there’s some sort of right not be offended—well, that is a topic for another column. As a practical matter, I’m more concerned about stopping this poisonous idea in its tracks and helping young people learn to grapple with the reality that not everybody thinks like them—which is really just another way of saying, help them grow up.

To that end, each semester, I give the following short speech to my college students on the first day of class and also include a version of it in my syllabus. I share it here in the hope that it might do some good in the wider world. If you agree, perhaps you can forward it to a millennial or Gen-Zer that you love. If you disagree — well, I hope at least you’re not offended by this:

“There’s a lot of talk these days about 'hate speech' and other things people say that are “offensive.” So before we go any further, I need you to understand that 'hate speech' s not an actual thing, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed—including very recently in Matal v. Tam (2016).

“Yes, people sometimes say things that others find offensive. And while we should probably try to avoid offending people whenever possible — something my parents taught me when I was a child — there’s no way you can go through life without doing so occasionally. I certainly can’t teach a class of any substance without saying something that someone might find offensive.

“Not that I go out of my way to offend. Personally, I’ve never taken a ‘shock jock’ approach to teaching, saying outrageous things in order to provoke a response from students. That’s just not my personality. But I’ve had professors like that, and you probably will, too. Just be aware that they’re allowed. It’s called academic freedom.

“But even if I don’t mean to offend you, I just might. And if I don’t, one of the writers we’re studying probably will. After all, writers WRITE about all sorts of controversial topics, like sex and gender and politics and race and what have you. Any writer worth reading ultimately writes about the human condition, of which all those are important elements.

“So my advice to you, as we embark on this class, is twofold. First, keep in mind that being offended is a choice. Others can say what they want; you have no control over that. What you can control, however, is how you respond. You can choose not to be offended, even if someone’s words are objectively offensive— although that’s relatively rare. The vast majority of the time, offense is subjective: something taken, not given.

“More importantly, in the context of a college course, you should understand that being offended is an emotional response, not an intellectual one. The appropriate intellectual response to offensive speech, whether objectively wrong or merely subjectively distasteful, is to formulate a cogent rebuttal.

“Why, exactly, is the speaker (or writer) wrong? Why are you right? What evidence can you marshal to support your position?

“Unfortunately, as a society, we seem to have gotten the idea that the answer to offensive speech is to shut down or cancel the speaker. But that never works, long-term, as the history of oppressive regimes clearly shows. That’s especially true in the United States, where many of us have grown accustomed to speaking our minds and view efforts to silence us as a personal challenge.

“Instead, the antidote to wrong or offensive speech is more speech, not less. When it becomes apparent that a bad idea cannot withstand reasoned argument, then it will die, and not before. That, in my humble opinion, is one of the main things you’re going to college to learn.”

***************************************

Woke segregation comes to campus

A poisonous ideology is festering on American campuses – the ideology of woke racialism.

It was this ideology at work in Elon University’s ‘white caucus’. This was a planned series of Zoom meetings at the North Carolina university’s School of Education, in which ‘white-identifying students’ would be encouraged to ‘engage in conversations that unpack race and systemic oppression’. The sessions were white-only so that the discussions would not ‘burden or re-traumatise people of colour’. Instead, the white caucuses would provide whites with ‘a space to learn about and process their awareness of and complicity in unjust systems’.

But before it started, this semester’s caucus was cancelled after student complaints, and when the press started to notice. A university spokesman said: ‘Elon’s policies prohibit discrimination on the basis of age, race, colour, creed, sex, national or ethnic origin, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, or veteran’s status. Because this student-led program would have excluded non-white individuals, it would be at odds with university policies and will not be held.’

A black undergraduate told university news outlet, the Elon News Network, that the caucus was a ‘horrible idea’. He said, ‘If you’re going to exclude the people who the issues are about [from] the conversation… there’s just no positive outcome that comes from that.’

A university spokesman told Fox News that the caucus was organised by students, not the university itself – and that it only became aware of it last week. But according to the Elon News Network, the programme ran for a whole semester before being stopped.

Elon is not the only institution where these ideas have gained a foothold. Last year students at the University at Buffalo, New York were invited to student-organised ‘listening sessions’ where they could reflect on the impact the presidential election had on them. The idea was to divide people into groups – a ‘white affinity group’ and a ‘people of colour affinity group’ – meeting at different times.

Similarly, two postgraduates at the University of Florida invited their fellow students to a virtual ‘town hall’ event last year, about sexuality and culture, which was intended only for ‘BIPOC’ (black, indigenous and other person of colour). ‘We cannot hide our skin colour’, an email advertising the event explained.

How have we got to this stage, where race relations are supposedly so bad that black and white cannot even talk to each other about racism?

The justification for today’s segregationist instincts may be different from the old racism. ‘Anti-racist’ activists say they want to protect black students from white hostility and racial trauma. But the divisive impulse is still there. They want to reintroduce racialised education, where whites and blacks receive different messages with very different tones. And they want us to believe that white and black are so fundamentally different that they cannot possibly understand each other and cooperate for mutual benefit – that is, until the whites have gone through a process of self-reflection and ultimately self-condemnation.

But perhaps the most fundamental contradiction in today’s so-called anti-racism movement lies in how it understands the origins of racism itself. On the one hand, its supporters believe that racism is a product of human failure: after all, there have to be racists for racism to exist. They appear to see racism primarily as an evil construct of the white race, which it uses to suppress the black.

But on the other hand, they see race as so all-defining that nothing can be understood except through its lens. They see race as incontrovertible and universal, the thing which characterises humanity more than anything else. They see race as the essential problem of the world, which we cannot escape from. The ideology’s core tenet is that race is everything, yet we can do little about it.

Some of us still believe that anti-racism should mean pushing for a society in which your skin colour has no negative impacts on you or on anyone else. A society where we can appreciate and value our cultural heritage, but do not have to be defined by it if we do not want to be. A society where white and black can be just skin colours – rather than standing in for ideologies which must be lifted up or taken down.

Racial segregation – no matter how woke the reasons given for it – will achieve the opposite. That this even needs to be said – that it is not obvious to some that separating the races is bad – is extraordinary.

We should refuse to accept this miserable, adversarial vision. Race need not define us. In fact, it is often the least interesting thing about us. But woke anti-racism says race is the issue of history and can never be anything else – that attaching anything other than ultimate importance to it makes you either a racist if you are white, or a useful idiot if you aren’t.

Let’s reject this racist notion. Let’s stand up for racial unity rather than division by ethnicity. Let’s stand firm in the face of a movement gone mad and defend what we know to be true: race is only what we make of it – and not what makes us.

******************************************

Student was not victim of racism for 'eating while black' at $80k Smith College and made up details that ruined the lives of four campus workers and led to controversial anti-bias training that employee resigned over

An elite Massachusetts liberal arts college has quietly conceded that there was no truth to allegations of racism made by one of their students that 'ruined the lives' of numerous campus workers.

Oumou Kanoute was in the canteen at Smith College on July 31, 2018 when she claimed she was profiled for 'eating while black' after a security guard asked her what she was doing.

Kanoute, a psychology undergraduate student, posted video of the incident on social media and claimed that she was the victim of racism.

However, an independent law firm investigating the incident found that same year that there was no evidence of wrongdoing and cleared all those involved. The case has come to light again after an employee resigned from the school on Friday, citing a 'racially hostile environment.'

Kanoute had named staff online, causing one to be hospitalized with stress and another, a janitor who was not present, forced from his job.

Kanoute said the security guard may have been carrying a 'lethal weapon' when, in fact, he was unarmed.

As a result, Smith forced employees to attend seminars about unconscious bias.

The 150-year-old women-only college, whose motto is 'audacity, agency, authenticity,' charges $80,000 a year in fees.

About 6.6 per cent of Smith's more than 2,500 undergraduates identify as black, according to college data: 36.3 per cent identify as a person of color.

Jodi Shaw, who worked for the residential life department, resigned from the school on February 19, citing a 'racially hostile environment.'

In October she began speaking out against the anti-bias training programs, and found a fervent YouTube following.

'I ask that Smith College stop reducing my personhood to a racial category. Stop telling me what I must think and feel about myself,' she said.

'Stop presuming to know who I am or what my culture is based upon my skin color. Stop asking me to project stereotypes and assumptions onto others based on their skin color.

'Stop demanding that I admit to white privilege, and work on my so-called implicit bias as a condition of my continued employment.'

In her resignation letter, published on former New York Times editor Bari Weiss's substack, Shaw said everything changed with Kanoute's accusations.

Having graduated from Smith College herself, Shaw said she loved her job, 'but the climate — and my place at the college — changed dramatically when, in July 2018, the culture war arrived at our campus when a student accused a white staff member of calling campus security on her because of racial bias.'

She continued: 'Before even investigating the facts of the incident, the college immediately issued a public apology to the student, placed the employee on leave, and announced its intention to create new initiatives, committees, workshops, trainings, and policies aimed at combating 'systemic racism' on campus.

'In spite of an independent investigation into the incident that found no evidence of racial bias, the college ramped up its initiatives aimed at dismantling the supposed racism that pervades the campus.

'This only served to support the now prevailing narrative that the incident had been racially motivated and that Smith staff are racist.'

On the day of the incident, Kanoute, a 21-year-old who was raised in New York after her family emigrated from Mali, was in an empty canteen that was reserved for a summer camp program for young children.

Jackie Blair, a veteran cafeteria employee, mentioned to Kanoute that it was reserved for the summer school, and then decided to drop it, according to The New York Times.

A janitor, who was in his 60s and poor of sight, and had worked at Smith for 35 years, was emptying garbage cans when he saw a figure reclining and eating alone, in a far corner of the canteen which was supposed to be closed.

Campus police had advised staff to call security rather than confront strangers on their own, so the janitor called security.

'We have a person sitting there laying down in the living room,' the janitor told a dispatcher according to a transcript.

'I didn't approach her or anything but he seems out of place.'

A well-known older campus security officer drove over to the dorm where the cafeteria was situated, The Times recounted, and was accompanied by a campus police officer.

He recognized her as a student and they had a brief and polite conversation, which she recorded on video.

'Hi,' she says.

'How are you doing?' a man says.

'Good, how are you?' she replied.

'We were wondering why you were here,' he says.

'Oh, I was eating lunch, I'm working the summer program, so I was just relaxing on the couch.'

He replies: 'Oh, just taking a break. So you're with the program?'

'Yeah. I'm actually a TA,' she says.

He replies: 'Oh, so that's what it was. We just wondered.'

Kanoute says: 'It's OK, it's just that kind of stuff like this just happens way too often, where people just feel threatened.'

Hours later she wrote on Facebook: 'It's outrageous that some people question my being at Smith, and my existence overall as a woman of color.'

She said the officer, who could have been carrying a 'lethal weapon,' left her near 'meltdown'.

Kanoute did not mention that Blair had already told her that the empty cafe was closed, except for the summer school students.

She wrote: 'I cannot even sit down and eat lunch peacefully.

'I did nothing wrong. I wasn't making a noise or bothering anyone. All I did was be black.'

***********************************

Australia: Redcliffe State High School’s trial of pronoun badges has divided the community

A state high school’s trial of gender pronoun badges has divided the community with some welcoming the new initiative and others saying the “world has gone mad”.

Redcliffe State High School’s LGBTIQ+ group launched the trial of the pronoun badges last week. It provides students an option to wear a badge with he/him, she/her or they/them on it.

A Facebook post shared by the school said: “(The) purpose is to display to everyone what those who are wearing them define themselves as. They’re also so that people know what to refer to the wearer as.”

A poll conducted by the Redcliffe Herald found 91 per cent, of the almost 2000 voters, did not think gender badges should become common practice at all Queensland schools.

Many readers said the school should focus less on this and more on the basics of education. William said: “No wonder our world ranking in math and science are going to the dogs”.

“How about teachers teaching maths, science and English and leaving all this rubbish alone. Teachers and the education system have no right or authority to start reading around with gender issues. That should only be the responsibility of the parents,” Peter said.

Philip, a teacher, supported the idea. “Regardless of what many people might think about the use of differing pronouns by people, this is an incredibly good idea,” he wrote. “As a teacher, having to recall the preferred pronouns for all my students has always been difficult. The uniform does not help you, nor does the hair style, etc.

***********************************

My other blogs: Main ones below

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*******************************

No comments: