So much hand wringing. One would think that students have only just started protesting with this generation.
Also remember, students do not know how to protest and organize magically upon matriculation. They are learning, sometimes by doing something badly.
I think that has been the case since the beginning of man kind except whoops maybe one can’t use the term man kind anymore LOL even though the meaning of it was gender neutral…
Actually, the founding fathers wrote in the First Amendment right to free speech to PREVENT GOVERNMENT enties/state from suppressing free speech rights.
It doesn’t apply to private institutions or individuals. Especially on their own property.
Free speech also doesn’t mean one is entitled to a captive audience, a platform provided by private entities, criticism/challenge from others(including protests).
No and no.
Agreed. But there’s a big difference between “I don’t know about this–how can I learn about it?” and “I firmly hold a wrong belief even as I admit I am ignorant about it. If you want me to have a less repugnant view, you’re going to have to waste your time teaching me, even though I’ll resist you every step of the way and won’t do any of the legwork myself.”
I’m a teacher–I love to educate and share what I’ve learned, and I love to learn. But hostile ignorance is usually a sign of obstinacy, in my experience, and doesn’t deserve that same level of respectful patience.
Really? What do you know about “how it’s being put forth” other than hand-wringing, pearl-clutching sensationalist stories about “kids today” and “snowflakes” and the manipulative elevation of trivial instances of excess? This stuff is being taught and studied at all levels. I know high school students who have a thorough and practical understanding of intersectionality–it’s a way to do activism and respect better than in the old days, when, for instance, minorities-within-minorities were usually expected to just show solidarity and hope their needs are addressed “later.” There are some amazing studies and books on black second-wave feminists, for example.
I think understanding intersectionality should be a prerequisite to having a negative opinion of it.
It was a topic that was often discussed in high school classes, and I have yet to meet someone that was unable to grasp the concept. It’s honestly just an articulation of something that should be considered common sense, and it does have practical purposes.
It is entirely possible to understand the concept, and and disagree that it has any explanatory power or intellectual depth, and to see that it is generally weaponized within academia for a self-serving few intersections.
Sure–we haven’t seen any evidence of that yet in this thread, @sorghum . So far the critics have either demonstrated or admitted ignorance.
@sorghum All you did in your first post of the thread was make an unnecessary jab at the concept for attacking “white cis straight men”, with nothing to back up the assertion. If you want to say that it has no explanatory power or intellectual depth, then you can make that argument. You haven’t.
I used the New Yorker piece as a vehicle to bring intersectionality up for discussion, not because I agree with Sullivan’s analysis. I’ve been surprised how little it has come up here on CC in our many, many discussions about free speech, protests, etc. I first heard about it as a formal theory or framework after my kid started college. That’s when I realized what a hot topic it is these days on campuses (and I don’t mean that in a negative or condescending way). I’d like to think that we could discuss it and learn from each other on this thread – too much to hope for?
Like any concept or theory it can be misunderstood or abused. What was noteworthy to me about the Murray protest was that he was basically accused of all forms of oppression, including being anti-gay, instead of a targeted attack on the charge of racism. Is that a fair use of the intersectionality framework?
Or take the label “white feminist”? Bringing up the concept of white feminism can start a useful discussion about how it’s an incomplete definition of feminism that excludes other perspectives and intersecting forms of oppression. Or it can be a label or denunciation you invoke as a reason to stop listening to someone. (For example, the selection of Madeleine Albright to speak at the Scripps College commencement drew charges of “white feminism.” http://tsl.news/opinions/5560/).
@TheAtlantic - I am still waiting for the time to watch @Corinthian’s link to Kimberle Crenshaw, but my limited exposure to intersectionality was when one of my kids went through a “privilege walk” exercise much like one described as follows:
https://peacelearner.org/2016/03/14/privilege-walk-lesson-plan/
If you go through the questions, they are worded such that straight white males will invariably be “privileged” and singled out. It was difficult to determine if the author of the above piece was trying to be ironic when he or she states:
That fits directly into the comments that @sorghum and I made earlier in this thread. We also were not the ones to coined the term “Oppression Olympics.” That distinction belongs to a feminist in the early 1990’s who described the natural outcome of intersectionality which is that different groups compete for the distinction of being the most disadvantaged, marginalized or aggrieved.
Probably you have brought up your kids in a diverse environment, in every sense, and they have had exposure to various factors that can affect a person’s life. Your kids could sit this out.
There are others though for whom this is their first time to reflect and to look around. IMHO the late teenage years are very self absorbed. Some students may find it thought provoking to consider how mental illness has affected their friend’s family, how many come from divorced homes, number of students without access to dental care, who has a large number of books in the home, etc.
I live in a largely white community. Even my friends are surprised when I mention the racism my kids have encountered.
Well…straight white males are at an advantage in society. Those aren’t the only factors that determine someone’s lived experiences though. I don’t see why awareness of that would be so shocking to you or anyone. If you think it’s wrong to point that out and make it a focal point of discussions, I’d probably agree with you simply because I find the exercise cringeworthy and not necessarily the best way to educate. With that said, it’s probably still a good learning tool for people that have never processed the fact that these differences exist. If you don’t believe that the demographics discussed are privileged, then that’s another discussion entirely.
Beyond that, a lot of the questions asked are related to income or family upbringing, and not to one’s status as a “straight white man”.
If so, that’s bad–it’s the opposite of intersectionality. Seen intersectionally, being straight and white are attended by privileges, but members of those groups may not be privileged in many other ways (disabilities, poverty, immigrant status, etc.).
This is also the opposite of what intersectionally–when well understood–should facilitate. In fact, those arguments about who’s the most oppressed are resolvable by understanding privilege intersectionally. For instance, society privileges men, but patriarchy hurts men as well–in a more patriarchal society, women may be confined to the home, housekeeping, and child rearing, men have the tremendous burden of all financial support. In Korea and Japan, for instance, that pressure (and the failure to live up to it) is a driving cause of suicide among middle-age and elderly men, and it’s not uncommon for men who have lost their jobs to continue leaving the house every morning pretending to go to work rather than face the shame of failing to meet society’s patriarchal, gendered expectations.
Privilege exists, but nobody is only privileged. We’re all complicated.
There are many situations where this is not true, not least in applying for many academic and academic-related jobs …
Sure, but on balance (or are you genuinely under the misapprehension that being straight and white isn’t generally a big plus?).
And this assertion might be questionable depending on field.
Especially considering a 2014 study carried out by a Wharton Prof found that Profs from private Us and natural science/pre-professional fields were more likely to be non-responsive or provide dismissive reply to inquiry emails with minority/female names whereas the exact same worded email with names signalling one was a White male received more responses overall along with more positive supportive responses:
http://www.npr.org/2014/04/22/305814367/evidence-of-racial-gender-biases-found-in-faculty-mentoring
This is related to faculty hiring as faculty mentoring is exceedingly critical for one’s academic career from undergraduate expression of interest, grad school, and landing a tenure-track job.
^ "for MANY academic "
The word MANY covers the issue of “depending on field”.