If we didn't hate UW-Madison enough already

[chicagowarrior]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/23/health/college-course-white-controversy-irpt-trnd/index.html?sr=twCNN122316college-course-white-controversy-irpt-trnd1118PMStoryLink&linkId=32722262&sr=fbCNN122316college-course-white-controversy-irpt-trnd/1123PMStoryLink&linkId=32722332

[JD]

Laughable...

Only in Madison.

[GGGG]

Laughable...

Only in Madison.

Nope. Been taught elsewhere.

Bad title. Subject is legit though.

[real chili 83]

Nope. Been taught elsewhere.

Bad title. Subject is legit though.

What is actually taught?

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

If you're offended by the course, you should probably take it...

[real chili 83]

If you're offended by the course, you should probably take it...

Why, what is the actual curriculum?

[GGGG]

What is actually taught?

Have you ever wondered what it really means to be white? If you’re like most people, the answer is probably “no.” But here is your chance! In Frantz Fanon’s famous Black Skin, White Masks (1952), his chapter “Look, a Negro!” interrogated the meaning and experience of coming to know oneself as Black under the constant scrutiny of the white gaze. It is an experience concomitant with W.E.B. Du Bois’s observation that under systemic racism, even well-meaning whites are constantly asking, in one way or another, “what is it like to be a problem?” But, Like Richard Wright’s quote above, philosopher George Yancy’s book, Look, a White! (2010), turns the question around, and rightly returns “the problem of whiteness” to white people. After all, since white supremacy was created by white people, is it not white folks who have the greatest responsibility to eradicate it? Our class begins here. We will come together with our socially ascribed identities of Black, white, mixed and other and, with the problem properly in its place we will ask ourselves and our allies, what are we going to do with it?

Critical Whiteness Studies aims to understand how whiteness is socially constructed and experienced in order to help dismantle white supremacy. Our class will break away from the standard US-centric frame, and consider how whiteness is constructed globally, with particular attention to paradigmatic cases like South Africa. Whereas disciplines such as Latino/a, African, and Asian American studies focus on race as experienced by non-whites, whiteness studies considers how race is experienced by white people. It explores how they consciously and unconsciously perpetuate institutional racism and how this not only devastates communities of color but also perpetuates the oppression of most white folks along the lines of class and gender. In this class, we will ask what an ethical white identity entails, what it means to be #woke, and consider the journal Race Traitor’s motto, “treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.”

Readings will include:
W.E.B. Du Bois, 1920. “The Souls of White Folks” in Dark Water
George Yancy, 2010. Look, a White!
Ta-Nehisi Coates, 2015. Between the World and Me
Damon Sajnani, 2015. “Rachel/Racial Theory: Reverse Passing in the Curious Case of Rachel Dolezal”
Tim Wise, 2016. White Lies Matter: Race, Crime, and the Politics of Fear in America

[rocket surgeon]

Yup, this sure is the class that'll put one over the top.  The real difference maker...I'll say that it could be a very revealing entry on ones resume, good/bad?  If one is totally honest here, I'd put it in the category-rabble rouser and next please...

[MUEng92]

This sounds like an academic version of click bait.  If the only way you can get your class offering noticed is to title something like this, it immediately makes me question the usefulness of it.
It may well be an in depth study of the topic with all sides presented without judgement by the instructor. I have my suspicions however.

Maybe they've changed all descriptions in college curriculum guides these days to be more like movie titles. 

What used to be "Heat Transfer" could be "The Battle Between Fire and Ice".

"World History" could be called "Why Everyone Who Lived Before Us Were Idiots"

[GGGG]

This sounds like an academic version of click bait.  If the only way you can get your class offering noticed is to title something like this, it immediately makes me question the usefulness of it.
It may well be an in depth study of the topic with all sides presented without judgement by the instructor. I have my suspicions however.

Maybe they've changed all descriptions in college curriculum guides these days to be more like movie titles. 

What used to be "Heat Transfer" could be "The Battle Between Fire and Ice".

"World History" could be called "Why Everyone Who Lived Before Us Were Idiots"

LOL, you may not be far off here.

[forgetful]

This sounds like an academic version of click bait.  If the only way you can get your class offering noticed is to title something like this, it immediately makes me question the usefulness of it.
It may well be an in depth study of the topic with all sides presented without judgement by the instructor. I have my suspicions however.

Maybe they've changed all descriptions in college curriculum guides these days to be more like movie titles. 

What used to be "Heat Transfer" could be "The Battle Between Fire and Ice".

"World History" could be called "Why Everyone Who Lived Before Us Were Idiots"

I think you are right.  Heck, when I saw the title and read the CNN article I was even like, WTF, how is this a course.

Then I read the full course description and thought, well that would be a legit and good course (if it's taught right).  The course title and the news article are both clickbait.  There is competition to get enough students for courses at Universities now, and students do pick classes based on titles.

Essentially the course is designed to flip the lens of typical cultural studies.  Instead of doing critical studies of the culture/history of minorities in the lens of White European America, like in an African American/Native American studies course, it switches the lens these are viewed upon, by looking at the culture/history of White European America through the lens of treatment/view of minorities. 

Done right, could be a very interesting and thought provoking course; done poorly and it could be viewed as racist.  The best way to do such a class is to have minimal lecture; instead be almost entirely primarily literature/discussion based, so the course goes where the students take it and the professor becomes a moderator.

[Eldon]

This sounds like an academic version of click bait.  If the only way you can get your class offering noticed is to title something like this, it immediately makes me question the usefulness of it.
It may well be an in depth study of the topic with all sides presented without judgement by the instructor. I have my suspicions however.

Maybe they've changed all descriptions in college curriculum guides these days to be more like movie titles. 

What used to be "Heat Transfer" could be "The Battle Between Fire and Ice".

"World History" could be called "Why Everyone Who Lived Before Us Were Idiots"

Hilarious!

[GooooMarquette]

I think you are right.  Heck, when I saw the title and read the CNN article I was even like, WTF, how is this a course.

Then I read the full course description and thought, well that would be a legit and good course (if it's taught right).  The course title and the news article are both clickbait.  There is competition to get enough students for courses at Universities now, and students do pick classes based on titles.

Essentially the course is designed to flip the lens of typical cultural studies.  Instead of doing critical studies of the culture/history of minorities in the lens of White European America, like in an African American/Native American studies course, it switches the lens these are viewed upon, by looking at the culture/history of White European America through the lens of treatment/view of minorities. 

Done right, could be a very interesting and thought provoking course; done poorly and it could be viewed as racist.  The best way to do such a class is to have minimal lecture; instead be almost entirely primarily literature/discussion based, so the course goes where the students take it and the professor becomes a moderator.

I agree.  The name is unfortunate - kind of a sad attention-getter - but the course could be interesting if it's properly taught.

[rocket surgeon]

This sounds like an academic version of click bait.  If the only way you can get your class offering noticed is to title something like this, it immediately makes me question the usefulness of it.
It may well be an in depth study of the topic with all sides presented without judgement by the instructor. I have my suspicions however.

Maybe they've changed all descriptions in college curriculum guides these days to be more like movie titles. 

What used to be "Heat Transfer" could be "The Battle Between Fire and Ice".

"World History" could be called "Why Everyone Who Lived Before Us Were Idiots"

Well done!  lead with the attention grabber-dont they teach that somewhere?  Advertising 101? 

[brandx]

Aw, come on.

As a white guy, I always want to be offended by everything cuz I have it so rough in our society.

And now, some of you try to make it sounds like a legitimate course? Sheeesh!

[keefe]

A steady required diet of Fluid Mechanics, Elasticity, Thermo, Heat Transfer, Finite Element Methods, and Parametric Curve and Surface Modeling prevented many of us from having to agonize over taking such "courses."

I am very much a fan of the humanities but courses such as this have no place in a legitimate college curriculum.

Hell, we went to the SSO for The Messiah last Saturday and I remembered some of what Horton Roe taught us about Handel. And I apply what Fr Davitt taught us in virtually every aspect of my daily life.

But this course? Utter rubbish. If I have three credit hours to burn I am investing it in Fr Sheehan's Old Testament class or the class I took on the Classics.

[brandx]

A steady required diet of Fluid Mechanics, Elasticity, Thermo, Heat Transfer, Finite Element Methods, and Parametric Curve and Surface Modeling prevented many of us from having to agonize over taking such "courses."

I am very much a fan of the humanities but courses such as this have no place in a legitimate college curriculum.

Hell, we went to the SSO for The Messiah last Saturday and I remembered some of what Horton Roe taught us about Handel. And I apply what Fr Davitt taught us in virtually every aspect of my daily life.

But this course? Utter rubbish. If I have three credit hours to burn I am investing it in Fr Sheehan's Old Testament class or the class I took on the Classics.

Viola! The advantage of choice. If students were forced to take the class, the outrage may have a slight basis in fact.

To each his own.

[brewcity77]

I think the one benefit here is at least confronting something uncomfortable. Very rarely are people willing to speak about their own faults. It's hard to acknowledge one's own prejudices. My wife and I were recently discussing someone we know whose family suspects is battling depression. When my wife asked those family members about it, they said they didn't want to bring it up for fear of embarrassing the individual. I mean, if a person is seriously, clinically depressed, NOT talking about it could be one of those things that in a year, or two years, or ten, you find yourself in a conversation at the person's funeral saying "why didn't we talk to them sooner?"

Things that are hard to talk about, like mental illness, like our personal prejudices, like sexism and racism and homophobia, not talking about them doesn't make those problems go away. If anything, it makes them worse when you are afraid to confront them. I'm not saying this course is the answer, and I think Eng92's suspicion that it will not be taught in an unbiased way is a very realistic concern, but clearly there is a massive divide in our country right now and one of the biggest problems is the people at the furthest ends of both spectrums absolutely refuse to talk to each other about it.

The course title choice is definitely designed to attract attention, but I think it's a viable topic and likely touches on the kind of discussions that we as a society NEED to have in the long run before we destroy ourselves from within.

[Jay Bee]

#gay

[GGGG]

A steady required diet of Fluid Mechanics, Elasticity, Thermo, Heat Transfer, Finite Element Methods, and Parametric Curve and Surface Modeling prevented many of us from having to agonize over taking such "courses."

I am very much a fan of the humanities but courses such as this have no place in a legitimate college curriculum.

Hell, we went to the SSO for The Messiah last Saturday and I remembered some of what Horton Roe taught us about Handel. And I apply what Fr Davitt taught us in virtually every aspect of my daily life.

But this course? Utter rubbish. If I have three credit hours to burn I am investing it in Fr Sheehan's Old Testament class or the class I took on the Classics.

Last I checked, no one was forcing anyone to take it.  Including you.

[#UnleashSean]

Last I checked, no one was forcing anyone to take it.  Including you.

Actually have to take a ethnics/diversity class to graduate from UW schools. So in a way you are being forced to take it. Though not that exact class.

On topic: This course is also taught at La Crosse, though has the title of Cultural and Mental health psychology.

[keefe]

Last I checked, no one was forcing anyone to take it.  Including you.

Most engineering curricula have very little room for elective courses.

But that isn't my point. Nor is it that anyone is forced to take such a course.

I am asserting that these types of classes are very thin on legitimate intellectual discourse and discovery. Compare it with a course on Homer, Shakespeare, Augustine, the teachings of Buddha, or Statics and Fluids. A student is much better served with any of those than what this UW course is dishing out.

Penn's English Department recently took down a portrait of Shakespeare and replaced it with one of Audra Lorde. Frankly, that is the sort of insanity that is cheapening the intellectual climate of our colleges. 

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Most engineering curricula have very little room for elective courses.

But that isn't my point. Nor is it that anyone is forced to take such a course.

I am asserting that these types of classes are very thin on legitimate intellectual discourse and discovery. Compare it with a course on Homer, Shakespeare, Augustine, the teachings of Buddha, or Statics and Fluids. A student is much better served with any of those than what this UW course is dishing out.

What are you basing this on? I assume you haven't taken a class like this but please correct me if I'm wrong. I have taken several similar classes and found them to be well researched, grounded in theory, and had some of the most significant impact on my world view, personal ethics, and cultural competency. I have taken classes on Homer, Shakespeare, Augustine, and the teachings of Buddha. I confess I have not taken a class on Statics and Fluids. I loved those classes and they had a great impact on me, but I personally found the classes like this one to be more valuable but could absolutely understand why others would not agree.

Penn's English Department recently took down a portrait of Shakespeare and replaced it with one of Audra Lorde. Frankly, that is the sort of insanity that is cheapening the intellectual climate of our colleges. 

From what I recall, Penn did not remove Shakespeare's portrait. It was students who acted on their own. I also believe it wasn't done to make a comment that Lorde was more important than Shakespeare, it was a form of protest to the results of the election and some of the incidents that followed.

[muwarrior69]

Last sentence in UWs statement reads: All UW–Madison students are welcome in courses like this, which is not designed to offend individuals or single out an ethnic group. Yet the central theme of the course is the "problem of whiteness".  Can someone please explains to me how that is not singling out an ethic group or not being offensive to an individual who is part of that ethnic group; especially when that group or person is defined right at the beginning as the "problem"?

[Jay Bee]

Last sentence in UWs statement reads: All UW–Madison students are welcome in courses like this, which is not designed to offend individuals or single out an ethnic group. Yet the central theme of the course is the "problem of whiteness".  Can someone please explains to me how that is not singling out an ethic group or not being offensive to an individual who is part of that ethnic group; especially when that group or person is defined right at the beginning as the "problem"?

They believe adding a disclaimer, although it's completely at odds with the course and its description, sustains their righteousness. 

"After all, since white supremacy was created by white people, is it not white folks who have the greatest responsibility to eradicate it?"... but, um... we're not singling any group out!