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
Laughable...
Only in Madison.
Quote from: JD on December 23, 2016, 11:18:10 PM
Laughable...
Only in Madison.
Nope. Been taught elsewhere.
Bad title. Subject is legit though.
Quote from: Dr. Vinnie Boombatz on December 24, 2016, 06:50:58 AM
Nope. Been taught elsewhere.
Bad title. Subject is legit though.
What is actually taught?
If you're offended by the course, you should probably take it...
Quote from: ChitownSpaceForRent on December 24, 2016, 07:11:44 AM
If you're offended by the course, you should probably take it...
Why, what is the actual curriculum?
Quote from: real chili 83 on December 24, 2016, 07:09:18 AM
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
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...
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"
Quote from: MUEng92 on December 24, 2016, 09:26:44 AM
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.
Quote from: MUEng92 on December 24, 2016, 09:26:44 AM
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.
Quote from: MUEng92 on December 24, 2016, 09:26:44 AM
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!
Quote from: forgetful on December 24, 2016, 12:45:17 PM
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.
Quote from: MUEng92 on December 24, 2016, 09:26:44 AM
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?
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!
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.
Quote from: keefe on December 24, 2016, 11:07:38 PM
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.
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.
#gay
Quote from: keefe on December 24, 2016, 11:07:38 PM
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.
Quote from: Dr. Vinnie Boombatz on December 25, 2016, 06:10:06 PM
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.
Quote from: Dr. Vinnie Boombatz on December 25, 2016, 06:10:06 PM
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.
Quote from: keefe on December 26, 2016, 12:48:18 AM
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.
Quote from: keefe on December 26, 2016, 12:48:18 AM
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.
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"?
Quote from: muwarrior69 on December 26, 2016, 09:07:32 AM
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!
Lol, the comments on this thread are absolutely ridiculous.
Quote from: keefe on December 26, 2016, 12:48:18 AM
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.
Hold on.
You are the dude that went on and on about how you were so embarrassed to hang out with your Seattle friends because Marquette rescinded a job offer to Jodi O'Brien. Have you seen the descriptions of the courses she taught at Seattle University? Did you compare those with "a course on Homer, Shakespeare, Augustine, the teachings of Buddha, or Statics and Fluids?" How are those fundamentally different than what UW is teaching here?
My two cents is that this absolutely represents a click bait title, but the discourse and discussion is one that is valid and important to have.
That being said, a university sanctioned course may not be the most ideal place for it. There are any number of forums (like this one) that could be university-supported/protected in which this discussion could be had with equal or greater value to the academic community.
Quote from: GB Warrior on December 26, 2016, 10:46:33 AM
My two cents is that this absolutely represents a click bait title, but the discourse and discussion is one that is valid and important to have.
That being said, a university sanctioned course may not be the most ideal place for it. There are any number of forums (like this one) that could be university-supported/protected in which this discussion could be had with equal or greater value to the academic community.
ummm...inflation put that at about ten cents worth ;D but good stuff!
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 25, 2016, 02:32:19 PM
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.
That's kind of how I see it. But one must be VERY careful in these types of situations not to let it evolve into something it shouldn't be. My genuine worry is that many (most) professors choosing to teach it would likely have fringe political beliefs and have trouble avoiding the obvious pitfalls. We've seen that too much in recent times under the pretense of 'academic freedom'. I'm talking about guys like Ward Churchill, for example. Dr. O'Brien might not have been a good fit for MU and I personally agreed with Fr. Wild's ultimate decision but I wouldn't put her in that same fringe category.
Quote from: jsglow on December 26, 2016, 01:06:55 PM
That's kind of how I see it. But one must be VERY careful in these types of situations not to let it evolve into something it shouldn't be. My genuine worry is that many (most) professors choosing to teach it would likely have fringe political beliefs and have trouble avoiding the obvious pitfalls. We've seen that too much in recent times under the pretense of 'academic freedom'. I'm talking about guys like Ward Churchill, for example. Dr. O'Brien might not have been a good fit for MU and I personally agreed with Fr. Wild's ultimate decision but I wouldn't put her in that same fringe category.
It's most likely true for the students who would elect to take such a course as well.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on December 26, 2016, 02:12:38 PM
It's most likely true for the students who would elect to take such a course as well.
In all honesty, the ones most likely to teach it and take it would probably gain the least from it.
"My genuine worry is that many (most) professors choosing to teach it would likely have fringe political beliefs and have trouble avoiding the obvious pitfalls."
very well stated! seriously loved how you "tip-toed" thru the political minefield here
madison just may have found a guy to teach the class for them...as soon as drexel allows him to go free agent, hein'er?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/drexel-university-professor-under-fire-for-white-genocide-tweet/
Quote from: keefe on December 26, 2016, 12:48:18 AM
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.
Interesting, as someone who has taken classes in most of the areas you list above (including statics/fluids), or worked/published in those fields, I would disagree with you.
The classes you list (with the exception of Statics and Fluids), are all equivalent to the course proposed by the UW professor. They are all fabulous classes in theory, that can be useless if the professor does not adequately perform their job. Homer, Augustine, Shakespeare, and Buddha are profoundly interesting, but only if the professor can open up dialogue and let the students learn from each other with direction. If the professor does not properly integrate those works within the context of the era and motivate discussion, those classes are useless and nothing but a reading exercise.
Same for the class proposed at UW, except that class is infinitely harder to navigate as it deals with topics that are explosive and controversial.
In either case, much can be learned by looking at ideals/morality/society in the context of an era and its people.
The least useful, at least to me, is a course like statics and fluids. Personally, I'll teach it to myself (and did) and there isn't much a professor can do to make it more meaningful.
Quote from: rocket surgeon on December 26, 2016, 04:17:00 PM
"My genuine worry is that many (most) professors choosing to teach it would likely have fringe political beliefs and have trouble avoiding the obvious pitfalls."
very well stated! seriously loved how you "tip-toed" thru the political minefield here
madison just may have found a guy to teach the class for them...as soon as drexel allows him to go free agent, hein'er?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/drexel-university-professor-under-fire-for-white-genocide-tweet/
I'm actually serious about this statement rocket. I think it could be an interesting, eye opening discussion and learning experience for all. I can also easily imagine walking out after 15 minutes when anyone could figure out where it was really going despite all the well worded course descriptions.
Quote from: jsglow on December 26, 2016, 08:50:56 PM
I'm actually serious about this statement rocket. I think it could be an interesting, eye opening discussion and learning experience for all. I can also easily imagine walking out after 15 minutes when anyone could figure out where it was really going despite all the well worded course descriptions.
I fully believe you and appreciate your response. I hope my statement did not come across such that I was making light of it. In fact, au contraire. To say it is a HOT button issue is like saying the packers are kinda popular in Wisconsin. There are only a few here on this board who could have said what you said without getting slapped around a little. I'm glad you took the reigns and walked us into the subject as you did. As a few have stated here, certain subjects, unless talked about, become misunderstood or misrepresented.
Quote from: rocket surgeon on December 26, 2016, 09:26:14 PM
I fully believe you and appreciate your response. I hope my statement did not come across such that I was making light of it. In fact, au contraire. To say it is a HOT button issue is like saying the packers are kinda popular in Wisconsin. There are only a few here on this board who could have said what you said without getting slapped around a little. I'm glad you took the reigns and walked us into the subject as you did. As a few have stated here, certain subjects, unless talked about, become misunderstood or misrepresented.
Please explain to me how this topic can be misunderstood or misrepresented as explained in the course topic.
Quote from: brandx on December 25, 2016, 12:00:38 PM
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.
This.
I am far more taken aback by the knee-jerk response of the elected official:
BAN IT!Yes, and let's burn some books while we're at it!!
Quote from: MU82 on December 27, 2016, 07:55:30 AM
This.
I am far more taken aback by the knee-jerk response of the elected official: BAN IT!
Yes, and let's burn some books while we're at it!!
So anything goes as far as course offerings? Surely you believe there is some redeeming value to this particular course.
I am biased, but I generally think it is best for an accredited public university to decide what is best in regards to course offerings and not an elected political body. And calling for him to be fired is just another step beyond that.
Quote from: Dr. Vinnie Boombatz on December 27, 2016, 08:23:53 AM
I am biased, but I generally think it is best for an accredited public university to decide what is best in regards to course offerings and not an elected political body. And calling for him to be fired is just another step beyond that.
Tax dollars, YES! Opinion, NO!
I didn't say they didn't have a right to do it. Just saying that public universities know better how to set its curriculum. Plus that doesn't address the threatening the job status of the public employee.
Quote from: Jay Bee on December 27, 2016, 08:18:49 AM
So anything goes as far as course offerings? Surely you believe there is some redeeming value to this particular course.
I don't know enough about it to make such a declaration. Neither does the elected official, I'm guessing.
If I was college age at a university that offered it, I would seriously consider taking the class.
Quote from: tower912 on December 27, 2016, 01:37:50 PM
If I was college age at a university that offered it, I would seriously consider taking the class.
What would you gain from taking such a course?
Quote from: muwarrior69 on December 27, 2016, 02:01:32 PM
What would you gain from taking such a course?
Many things but it can generally be summed up with "a different perspective on race than the one I was raised with."
Another perspective. When we become locked into a single myopic perspective and don't attempt to look at big issues from different angles, we fail. Before I go into a fire, as an officer, before I commit resources into a life threatening atmosphere, I do a 360 of the building, to apply what I have learned about architecture and fire behavior to try to have a better idea of where the fire is, where it has been, and where it is going. If I don't do that, I put myself and my co-workers at unnecessary risks in an already chaotic situation.
I try to do that in my life. I started learning this at MU from the Jesuits. Trying to see and understand something that I may take for granted or assume I know from different perspectives is how I get better as a person.
Do I think I would agree with everything presented in this course? No. I didn't agree with many of Dr. Wolfe's perspectives in the Poli Sci courses I took from him. I don't value them less because I sometimes disagreed with the prof. I do think that to have my point of view challenged, to experience a different blind man's experience of the elephant, to be reminded that my world view is not the only world view, is a good thing.
Or, to put it another way, why do replay officials at NFL games examine multiple camera angles?
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on December 27, 2016, 02:13:20 PM
Many things but it can generally be summed up with "a different perspective on race than the one I was raised with."
What perspective would that be?
Quote from: tower912 on December 27, 2016, 02:20:10 PM
Another perspective. When we become locked into a single myopic perspective and don't attempt to look at big issues from different angles, we fail. Before I go into a fire, as an officer, before I commit resources into a life threatening atmosphere, I do a 360 of the building, to apply what I have learned about architecture and fire behavior to try to have a better idea of where the fire is, where it has been, and where it is going. If I don't do that, I put myself and my co-workers at unnecessary risks in an already chaotic situation.
I try to do that in my life. I started learning this at MU from the Jesuits. Trying to see and understand something that I may take for granted or assume I know from different perspectives is how I get better as a person.
Do I think I would agree with everything presented in this course? No. I didn't agree with many of Dr. Wolfe's perspectives in the Poli Sci courses I took from him. I don't value them less because I sometimes disagreed with the prof. I do think that to have my point of view challenged, to experience a different blind man's experience of the elephant, to be reminded that my world view is not the only world view, is a good thing.
Or, to put it another way, why do replay officials at NFL games examine multiple camera angles?
So how can "the problem of whiteness" not be locked into a single myopic perspective?
It is a perspective that is not mine. To be challenged is to better understand my own perspective. To be forced to examine things I take for granted is an opportunity for growth.
Again, why do NFL officials use so many camera angles when reviewing a play?
Quote from: muwarrior69 on December 27, 2016, 02:45:45 PM
So how can "the problem of whiteness" not be locked into a single myopic perspective?
Because in an ideal world the class will bring together the viewpoints of whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc, as well as both males and females of the varied ethnicities.
I'm not a religious person, but I took religion courses at Marquette. Those classes challenged my own beliefs and led me to do an independent study course (communications major) of writing a 120-page screenplay that looked at a "What if" scenario of Christ returning today. In those classes, we had Catholics, non-Catholic Christians, Jews, and Atheists like myself. Those divergent viewpoints made for better discussion and a better classroom dynamic.
One of the biggest problems in our society today is that people tend to only surround themselves with those that think like they do, only watch news that reinforces what they already believe, and only read articles that affirm their own beliefs and push them more and more to the furthest out ideology closest to their baseline. How can you understand what others think if you don't listen to them? How can you consider the dissenting opinion if you never allow it to be heard?
At the end of the day, you can have a discussion with yourself all you like, but you'll never learn anything new.
My brother took a women's studies course at MSU. Only guy in the class. Challenged the teacher whenever she started painting in overly broad strokes. To hear him tell it, it got to the point that all he had to do was raise his hand and she would say 'OK, Patrick, that was over the line.'.
His perspective was challenged. He survived. His mind was opened. And my family loves a good discussion.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on December 27, 2016, 02:45:45 PM
So how can "the problem of whiteness" not be locked into a single myopic perspective?
Did you read the course description I posted above? Or are you just hung up on the title?
Quote from: tower912 on December 27, 2016, 03:35:41 PM
My brother took a women's studies course at MSU. Only guy in the class. Challenged the teacher whenever she started painting in overly broad strokes. To hear him tell it, it got to the point that all he had to do was raise his hand and she would say 'OK, Patrick, that was over the line.'.
His perspective was challenged. He survived. His mind was opened. And my family loves a good discussion.
I took Women In the Bible at MU. 3 guys. My buddy & I got scolded & the teacher threatened to toss us within the first 10 minutes of class. My mind wasn't opened
Now, Intro to Islam... that was interesting. 50%+ of the class were Muslims... Jesuit taught the course... I sat back and took in the discussions... mind opened
Whites are bad class... shrug
Quote from: Jay Bee on December 27, 2016, 03:49:21 PM
I took Women In the Bible at MU. 3 guys. My buddy & I got scolded & the teacher threatened to toss us within the first 10 minutes of class. My mind wasn't opened
Now, Intro to Islam... that was interesting. 50%+ of the class were Muslims... Jesuit taught the course... I sat back and took in the discussions... mind opened
Whites are bad class... shrug
So in other words, it's all about how the professor handles the subject matter.
Quote from: Dr. Vinnie Boombatz on December 27, 2016, 04:34:18 PM
So in other words, it's all about how the professor handles the subject matter.
How confident they are in their lives & their ability to not be an over-emotional victim
A Catholic priest who has studied Islam vs a white who thinks whites are awful... yeah
Quote from: Jay Bee on December 27, 2016, 04:53:54 PM
How confident they are in their lives & their ability to not be an over-emotional victim
A Catholic priest who has studied Islam vs a white who thinks whites are awful... yeah
Is the professor white? Does he think whites are awful? He is a Harvard and Northwestern graduate who studies race. I have no idea if he would conduct a good course or not.
And I had Fr. Lambeck for Islam and thought he was terrible. He kept referring to Muslims as "Mohammedans," which is actually a little offensive.
As I said, a good professor can do well with this topic. Bad ones won't.
Quote from: Dr. Vinnie Boombatz on December 27, 2016, 03:44:38 PM
Did you read the course description I posted above? Or are you just hung up on the title?
Where you lose me is that racism is institutionalized and it only runs one way. As you say, 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." In other words to be loyal to humanity I must know in the deepest recesses of my being that I am consciously or unconsciously a racist simply by being white. You or no one else knows what is in my heart. You fail to see me as an individual. You only see my whiteness.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on December 27, 2016, 06:33:58 PM
Where you lose me is that racism is institutionalized and it only runs one way. As you say, 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." In other words to be loyal to humanity I must know in the deepest recesses of my being that I am consciously or unconsciously a racist simply by being white. You or no one else knows what is in my heart. You fail to see me as an individual. You only see my whiteness.
You believe that your race is a static variable. The theory here is that race is a social construct.
We have a few people who profess to know exactly what will be discussed during the semester, how every conversation will go, how the students will interact with each other and the professor, how the course will progress over time, etc.
They don't need to see the syllabus. They don't need to know anything about the instructor or the students.
But they, like the legislator who wants to BAN IT! sight unseen, know everything there is to know!
It sure must be wonderful to be all-knowing like that.
Am I the only upper middle class white kid from the suburbs that not only earned a degree at MU but also gained a fantastic perspective on how lucky i was that the deck was stacked in my favor?
reading this thread my assumption is either most of you grew up in socioeconomically diverse communities (i know some did, so no disparagement meant) or you never ventured into the communities surrounding the campus.
If there is real structure and research behind the curriculum i don't get why people are offended, especially since 75% of the enrollment is white.....and i'm guessing not familiar with a non rural/suburban environment.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on December 27, 2016, 06:33:58 PM
Where you lose me is that racism is institutionalized and it only runs one way. As you say, 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." In other words to be loyal to humanity I must know in the deepest recesses of my being that I am consciously or unconsciously a racist simply by being white. You or no one else knows what is in my heart. You fail to see me as an individual. You only see my whiteness.
Sounds like the course will teach a perspective different from your own. Audit the class and find out!
Quote from: tower912 on December 27, 2016, 02:50:17 PM
It is a perspective that is not mine. To be challenged is to better understand my own perspective. To be forced to examine things I take for granted is an opportunity for growth.
Again, why do NFL officials use so many camera angles when reviewing a play?
+1
Most of what I know comes from people that think different than I.
Quote from: forgetful on December 28, 2016, 12:54:56 AM
+1
Most of what I know comes from people that think different than I.
So what you're saying is you've learned just about everything you know from chicos?
Quote from: MU82 on December 28, 2016, 06:56:50 AM
So what you're saying is you've learned just about everything you know from chicos?
this chicos guy must have been some kind of 'scoop hero, enn'a?
Quote from: rocket surgeon on December 28, 2016, 07:28:49 PM
this chicos guy must have been some kind of 'scoop hero, enn'a?
You know it, Boo-Boo.
..and it only get better.
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=8591
Quote from: muwarrior69 on January 04, 2017, 04:27:08 PM
..and it only get better.
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=8591
"Men-identified students"
can apply to join the program, where participants enter a space for "critical self-reflection" so that they can both challenge traditional views of masculinity and promote gender equity,"
So in other words, it is completely optional.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on January 04, 2017, 04:27:08 PM
..and it only get better.
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=8591
Yea...Nothing wrong with this course either. The hyper-masculine society we live in is a very big issue for those who identify as males. One of the reasons suicide rates in men is much higher than women.
Break down the gender norms.
I took two mistitled classes at MU; History of Jazz and Acting for Non-Theater Majors.
Boths should have been called "Class with Basketball Players".
Quote from: The Lens on January 04, 2017, 04:47:43 PM
I took two mistitled classes at MU; History of Jazz and Acting for Non-Theater Majors.
Boths should have been called "Class with Basketball Players".
Ha, I almost took a dance class my last semester until I realized I didn't need the credits. (Saved me some money didnt take enough credits to technically being full time)
Thinking back on it, I should have just done it for the story.
Quote from: ChitownSpaceForRent on January 04, 2017, 04:41:23 PM
Yea...Nothing wrong with this course either. The hyper-masculine society we live in is a very big issue for those who identify as males. One of the reasons suicide rates in men is much higher than women.
Break down the gender norms.
Suicidal thoughts run higher in women than men. It's just that men succeed at taking their own life more than women. I believe depression, not hyper-masculinity, leads to suicide.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jan/21/suicide-gender-men-women-mental-health-nick-clegg
Quote from: muwarrior69 on January 04, 2017, 05:27:12 PM
Suicidal thoughts run higher in women than men. It's just that men succeed at taking their own life more than women. I believe depression, not hyper-masculinity, leads to suicide.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jan/21/suicide-gender-men-women-mental-health-nick-clegg
Depression can stem from many causes. Tramautic events, bullying, etc.
Anyways, that's besides the point, nothing wrong with the class, choose to take it or not doesn't really matter. If it offends you for whatever reason so be it.
Keep missing the parts where these classes are requirements.
No, just wondering why there are no courses on "the problem of blackness" or a course "where participants enter a space for "critical self-reflection" so that they can both challenge non-traditional views of femininity and promote gender self esteem".
Quote from: muwarrior69 on January 04, 2017, 06:33:12 PM
No, just wondering why there are no courses on "the problem of blackness" or a course "where participants enter a space for "critical self-reflection" so that they can both challenge non-traditional views of femininity and promote gender self esteem".
You're gonna have a tough time coping in the next decade...
I may not be around in the next decade!
Quote from: muwarrior69 on January 04, 2017, 07:04:41 PM
I may not be around in the next decade!
you wouldn't happen to be HYPER-masculine err anything, woodja?
Quote from: muwarrior69 on January 04, 2017, 06:33:12 PM
No, just wondering why there are no courses on "the problem of blackness" or a course "where participants enter a space for "critical self-reflection" so that they can both challenge non-traditional views of femininity and promote gender self esteem".
There are classes like that. I'll agree that a click bait title like "Problem with whiteness" would never fly but there are classes about black culture and the challenges it faces. For your second example, I have seen courses for women with pretty much the exact same verbage that you used.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on January 04, 2017, 04:27:08 PM
..and it only get better.
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=8591
I actually did my thesis on male identity development. Looked at a lot of programs like this. They can be very effective teaching tools but the challenge they face is that they are usually preaching to the choir. The men who sign up for this type of program are usually the ones who don't need it. An estimated 98% of sexual violence and over 90% of physical violence is committed by men despite men making up only 50% of the population. Why? These programs have students reflect on that question.
Quote from: ChitownSpaceForRent on January 04, 2017, 04:41:23 PM
Yea...Nothing wrong with this course either. The hyper-masculine society we live in is a very big issue for those who identify as males. One of the reasons suicide rates in men is much higher than women.
Break down the gender norms.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on January 04, 2017, 05:27:12 PM
Suicidal thoughts run higher in women than men. It's just that men succeed at taking their own life more than women. I believe depression, not hyper-masculinity, leads to suicide.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jan/21/suicide-gender-men-women-mental-health-nick-clegg
You are both right. So why do men complete suicide at a higher rate despite lower rates of suicidal ideation? I read a few studies a few years ago that concluded that there were multiple factors that most significant being men's unwillingness to seek help (don't remember the numbers but women in therapy outnumber men in therapy by an absurd amount) and men's willingness to resort to violence to solve problems. Both of which they linked back to hyper-masculinity.
Quote from: keefe on December 24, 2016, 11:07:38 PM
I remembered some of what Horton Roe taught us about Handel.
C'mon Keefe, I thought better of you than this. Horton?
How many Hortons are in your GPA? (said to the same cadence as the "What's in your Wallet" commercial from Capital One) was a common refrain in our family's get-togethers! I'm surprised anyone learned anything in that class.
Back on topic, "The Problem of Whiteness" implies there is something wrong with being Caucasian. There isn't, anymore than being born Asian, black or Hispanic is a problem. We all are God's children and we all are made in His Image and Likeness.
I would hope the good professor at UW would go back and look at some photos from the Selma/Montgomery march. Or the demonstrations for equal rights and equal access in my old hometown of Nashville. Or the sponsors of the 1964 Voting Rights Act or the 1965 Public Accommodations Act. Or Lyndon Johnson's face. I'd think he would see a lot of people who were not African-American. Is that "The Problem of Whiteness?"
P.S. -- I agree with Keefe's basic comment here: "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."
Quote from: dgies9156 on January 05, 2017, 07:39:52 AM
Back on topic, "The Problem of Whiteness" implies there is something wrong with being Caucasian. There isn't, anymore than being born Asian, black or Hispanic is a problem. We all are God's children and we all are made in His Image and Likeness.
Again "race" is not used as a static variable tied to ethnicity here. So you can be "white" and caucasian, "white" and African-American, etc.
So while you may *think* that it implies that there is something wrong with being a Caucasian, that's not what the course is about.
Quote from: Dr. Vinnie Boombatz on January 05, 2017, 08:25:54 AM
Again "race" is not used as a static variable tied to ethnicity here. So you can be "white" and caucasian, "white" and African-American, etc.
So while you may *think* that it implies that there is something wrong with being a Caucasian, that's not what the course is about.
What is a static variable. How can a variable be static.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on January 05, 2017, 09:41:05 AM
What is a static variable. How can a variable be static.
That is a good point. I'll put this a better way. Some people believe that while "ethnicity" is static, "race" is fluid. That it is more of a mindset than something you are born with.
It really boils down to culture versus biological "race". The class and other classes like it are discussing the culture of "whiteness" or "blackness" or whatever which is a construct by groups of people as opposed to biological race which is clearly something you are born with.
You can be white but a full participant in "blackness" and vice versa. In fact, when I lived in Florida in the early 90's there was a name for the white kids who "behaved black" that was a variation on a very offensive term.
So what the class should be covering (don't know whether it is or not) is any issues with the culture of "whiteness" that may impact other cultures. It shouldn't have anything to do with a person being literally "white".
I fundamentally disagree with an evaluation that undermines the potential value of the class due to its title, but I want to point out that the narrative of "what about good white people" obfuscates the fundamental reality that (i) institutionalized American racism in its purest and most obvious sense, in the form of slavery, is not some ancient relic - the last living slave died only six years before MU's national championship; and (ii) the political systems, the provision of social services, the maps of neighborhoods and schools, and economic opportunity in America, have and continue to be overwhelmingly dominated by white Americans, who, due to this status and against this historical backdrop, have never been forced to view the country through any other lens. Viewed this way, while "The Problem of Whiteness" is still a fairly click-baitey title for a college class, I think remembering those truths should ameliorate any victimization whites are inclined to feel.
Ultimately, we need to be careful not to co-opt "racism" away from something that all minorities in this country legitimately experience, and that legitimately explains a large number of America's institutional failings, to a meaningless insult that whites are in a hurry to prove doesn't apply to them. Sure, 99.999999% of all Americans, regardless of color, are comfortable calling the KKK racist. But that comfort has lead us to dangerously limit the application of that term to those obvious, and narrative examples of prejudice. Much more important is are the institutional realities of the country that undermine the equality of opportunity along racial lines. Without being racist in the narrative, KKK sort of way, we all can (and do) participate and implicitly approve of racist structures. Without knowing much about the class, I would guess that is the point of the class - how to transform the white response to racism from "Not me!" to "How us?"
Quote from: Dr. Vinnie Boombatz on January 05, 2017, 08:25:54 AM
Again "race" is not used as a static variable tied to ethnicity here. So you can be "white" and caucasian, "white" and African-American, etc.
So while you may *think* that it implies that there is something wrong with being a Caucasian, that's not what the course is about.
Vinnie, love ya man, but......
My Mom taught a simple phrase (and don't try to dissect it or re-interpret it!):
Words Mean Things!
When we speak, abstraction leads to confusion, misunderstanding and problems. Professor John Vivian, who taught for years in the then College of Journalism, used to angrily denounce the use of abstract nouns on grounds that the communicator was neither clear nor concise. Importantly, as Professor Vivian noted, the use of abstraction leaves your communication meaning different things to different people. That's not good, where you are a reporter for the Hooterville World Guardian or a Professor at the University of Wisconsin.
In that vein, The title "The Problem of Whiteness" means that, somehow, one perceives that being "white," which in contemporary America means the Caucasian segment of society, as being problematic. If that's not one's intent, one's communication is crap.
Just like "static variable" is an oxymoron. You can't have a static variable. You may have a series of observations that are static but if the observations across a representative sample are static, then you have a constant and not a variable.
I have already said that the title of the class was the equivalent of click-bait. The subject matter is fine. Not for me, but fine an an academic setting.
Quote from: mu03eng on January 05, 2017, 10:35:54 AM
It really boils down to culture versus biological "race". The class and other classes like it are discussing the culture of "whiteness" or "blackness" or whatever which is a construct by groups of people as opposed to biological race which is clearly something you are born with.
You can be white but a full participant in "blackness" and vice versa. In fact, when I lived in Florida in the early 90's there was a name for the white kids who "behaved black" that was a variation on a very offensive term.
So what the class should be covering (don't know whether it is or not) is any issues with the culture of "whiteness" that may impact other cultures. It shouldn't have anything to do with a person being literally "white".
Would that offensive term be "cultural appropriation'? ;)
Quote from: warriorchick on January 05, 2017, 11:58:41 AM
Would that offensive term be "cultural appropriation'? ;)
Oh if only it had been that subtle and non-jarring :)
Quote from: MUBurrow on January 05, 2017, 10:40:31 AM
I fundamentally disagree with an evaluation that undermines the potential value of the class due to its title, but I want to point out that the narrative of "what about good white people" obfuscates the fundamental reality that (i) institutionalized American racism in its purest and most obvious sense, in the form of slavery, is not some ancient relic - the last living slave died only six years before MU's national championship; and (ii) the political systems, the provision of social services, the maps of neighborhoods and schools, and economic opportunity in America, have and continue to be overwhelmingly dominated by white Americans, who, due to this status and against this historical backdrop, have never been forced to view the country through any other lens. Viewed this way, while "The Problem of Whiteness" is still a fairly click-baitey title for a college class, I think remembering those truths should ameliorate any victimization whites are inclined to feel.
Ultimately, we need to be careful not to co-opt "racism" away from something that all minorities in this country legitimately experience, and that legitimately explains a large number of America's institutional failings, to a meaningless insult that whites are in a hurry to prove doesn't apply to them. Sure, 99.999999% of all Americans, regardless of color, are comfortable calling the KKK racist. But that comfort has lead us to dangerously limit the application of that term to those obvious, and narrative examples of prejudice. Much more important is are the institutional realities of the country that undermine the equality of opportunity along racial lines. Without being racist in the narrative, KKK sort of way, we all can (and do) participate and implicitly approve of racist structures. Without knowing much about the class, I would guess that is the point of the class - how to transform the white response to racism from "Not me!" to "How us?"
But slavery was not just whites owning blacks. There were also black slave owners as well, albeit fewer. I doubt you will learn of any black slave owners or the black slave traders in Africa that sold black slaves to the white slave traders at the African American History museum that just opened. The evil of slavery transcends race, but we rarely learn that.
https://prezi.com/16twpmtfx1fb/were-black-slave-holders-significant-in-the-history-of-slave/
Quote from: muwarrior69 on January 05, 2017, 01:55:30 PM
But slavery was not just whites owning blacks. There were also black slave owners as well, albeit fewer. I doubt you will learn of any black slave owners or the black slave traders in Africa that sold black slaves to the white slave traders at the African American History museum that just opened. The evil of slavery transcends race, but we rarely learn that.
https://prezi.com/16twpmtfx1fb/were-black-slave-holders-significant-in-the-history-of-slave/
This is the nonsense that prevents people from ever having a serious discussion on racial issues. The number of black slave owners was miniscule and close to irrelevant.
Does it make you feel better somehow to emphasize the exceptions to the rule? If not, what is the point?
Quote from: muwarrior69 on January 05, 2017, 01:55:30 PM
But slavery was not just whites owning blacks. There were also black slave owners as well, albeit fewer. I doubt you will learn of any black slave owners or the black slave traders in Africa that sold black slaves to the white slave traders at the African American History museum that just opened. The evil of slavery transcends race, but we rarely learn that.
https://prezi.com/16twpmtfx1fb/were-black-slave-holders-significant-in-the-history-of-slave/
So you are upset that history focuses on whites' enslavement of blacks without much focus on the 0.1% of slave owners who were black? Could it be that while it did happen, it had such a minor impact on history compared to white enslavement of blacks that is not as worthy of focus? There is also the lens that white enslavement of blacks was racially motivated. It came from a belief that blacks were inferior to whites. Black on black enslavement might have had some motivations based on ethnicity or socio-economic status...certainly on sex...but not on race. Both are evil, both shouldn't have happened, but they have different impacts.
This page of the thread
(http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/2372327/hamlincrash.gif)