I’m not sure why it is laughable to cross off a school for any reason, how else do we make decisions? I have firsthand experience with this, having decided to scratch Yale off of the second round of schools that I would apply to for precisely the reasons in this thread. I needed some way of narrowing my list and the newspapers happily delivered, current events and climate are, at least to me, one of the most important aspects of any school after academics.
The solidarity rally at Stanford was a single event. It’s misleading to say that there are demonstrations around race. Certainly not in the manner of presenting demands. The campus is actively discussing demonstrations on other campuses, however.
The Fossil Fuel sit-in is over. Students are studying for finals or on vacation.
@f2000sa I realize the thread is 27 pages long, but asked and answered.
The antidote for a lack of recognition of women and minorities need not be to scrub the successes of white men from the record. It does us all good to recognize the female and minority role models in our history, but that doesn’t detract from the accomplishments of some white males. I would hope the big name composers whose names are etched on the walls of Paine Hall are deserving. Adding some diversity wouldn’t hurt, but erasing the names of worthy composers may not be the best way to go about it.
One can honor Marie Curie while recognizing Isaac Newton’s contributions to science and mathematics. Commending Edgar Allan Poe’s body of work does not preclude admiration of Mary Shelley’s writing. Even today, no need exists to put down Karl Ove Knausgard in order to praise Haruki Murakami, Toni Morrison, or Ta-Nehisi Coates.
The recognition of greatness is no zero-sum game, and this is especially true of the arts. By celebrating the accomplishments of all who create something truly beautiful, it’s difficult to go wrong.
Hey, why not.
I know it’s Salon, and as such will present a certain viewpoint, but it’s a viewpoint that I hadn’t really seen in regard to Prnceton, and a lot of it made sense to me.
I think, as a person in my mid-60’s (growing up in the 50’s and 60’s), that an awful lot of progress has been made, and young people are starting at a different starting line, so to speak. Change is happening in layers on all fronts. It takes time for change to trickle down (or up). Activism definitely can open up the next layer and speed progress along. But it also helps to study history deeply and proceed with a base of knowledge that informs action 
Hey, Cobrat, can you please educate me more about the history of my own people? I’m really appreciating learning all these great new facts!
I guess if you possess “situational privilege,” it becomes totally OK for people to lecture you about your own culture. Of course, were I a member of a less blessed minority, the rules would be different, and it would in fact be necessary for you to defer to any Jewish person’s feelings of offense, rationally founded or not.
“The AA activists would argue that while you may have worked hard from it, you along with other Whites or White ethnic groups hadn’t faced the same degree of being relegated to underclass status for centuries as slaves, being discriminated against largely due to that history,”
Yep. Life isn’t fair. I’m white, American-born and with no disabilities. I’m also smarter than a lot of people, and prettier than a lot of people too. So it goes.
That’s effectively what ended up happening when that ignorant White fundamentalist Christian pastor felt it was fine to effectively lecture Nazi victims and European Theater WWII vets in his sermon how the holocaust victim was “wrong” for refusing to meet and forgive the Nazi asking for forgiveness from the victim on his deathbed.
A sizable portion of the congregation either voted with their feet or started to loudly denounce the pastor for demonstrating his ignorance and “not knowing his place” by feeling he had the right to lecture those who were victims of Nazi atrocities and/or those who saw them firsthand as WWII veterans in the European theater.
My friend and I were among those who walked out in solidarity. IMHO…considering that pastor was too young and came from a family which never experienced those atrocities as victims or as veterans in Europe*
- Later found from other congregation members the pastor's grandparents spent WWII either stateside or fought in the Pacific.
Don’t they have homework to do?
This is a pretty weird distinction. Why should it matter where someone was oppressed? The whole idea is that the oppression carries forward generationally to people who weren’t even alive at the time. If someone was oppressed here and moved somewhere else, they would have claim, but someone who was oppressed elsewhere and moved here doesn’t? Even if the levels of oppression are the same? How is this consistent with a position opposing discrimination based on national origin?
Further, how does any degree of oppression (no matter how keenly felt by a distant ancestor) justify the use of authoritarian force to silence the opposition? This is in stark contrast to your #429 post regarding the pastor. As you said, the “congregation either voted with their feet or started to loudly denounce the pastor.” Notice how no one called his boss and tried to get him fired, or asked the police to come in and prevent him from talking, or muscled him out of the area because it was supposed to be a “safe space” for everyone but him.
The problem with the Salon piece is it doesn’t understand the difference between having free speech and exercising it. It doesn’t create more free speech to start talking about Wilson, it just uses what’s already there. It diminishes free speech when you prevent anyone from having a dissenting opinion, even if they weren’t going to use it.
"Does that mean I can shut any New England WASP up as well, since historically they had greater situational privilege than Catholic/Jewish me?
That’s effectively what ended up happening when that ignorant White fundamentalist Christian pastor felt it was fine to effectively lecture Nazi victims and European Theater WWII vets in his sermon "
No, no one “shut anyone up.” Walking out of a room where someone is speaking is not “shutting anyone up.” Refusing to let that person speak is “shutting them up.”
Thought experiment: Who has the most privilege? The person who is theoretically historically privileged, or the person who can make that person “submit” by just pulling the “I’m more oppressed” card?
Seems to me that if I’m supposed to automatically defer to someone’s opinions and accede to their demands because they claim they’ve been historically oppressed, I don’t have a lot of privilege at all.
There was no need to “call the boss” as some of those World War II vets or Nazi victims also happened to be senior church members/Board of Deacons who later gave that pastor his walking papers due in large part to that sermon which they felt demonstrated the pastor’s “poor fit” for their particular congregation.
So in a sense, his “free speech” was violated in the overly broad definition used by some posters here.
So someone whose job is it to speak to a specific group of people did it poorly and was fired as a result, and this is a free speech issue because…?
I’m not getting how this situation has anything to do with the topic of this thread.
Would it matter if the ignorant fundamentalist Christian pastor had been black or Chinese?
@cobrat I’m a little confused about the “ignorant White fundamentalist Christian pastor”. BTW I know how much some of the posters on here love posting those kinds of labels.
I have no idea exactly what the guy said or how he said it. Maybe he said it in a very condescending way. Maybe he demonstrated no empathy for how horrific those circumstances were. That would be very unfortunate. But the Bible clearly compels Christians to forgive those who have sinned against them if they want to be forgiven. It’s in the Lord’s Prayer. Was he speaking to a group of Christians? Is there no chance that was his message?
In that situational context, I believe the only way the message would have been somewhat palatable to that congregation was if said pastor was him/herself a victim of Nazi atrocities and/or a WWII veteran who saw Nazi atrocities firsthand.
Even then, it may have been chancy considering how understandably touchy the subject was for most victims/veterans in that congregation. My friend and I could relate somewhat to their feelings as his grandparents lived under Nazi occupation and mine had fled/fought the Imperial Japanese Army during WWII.
I would think so considering several of the victims/veterans incensed by the sermon were senior church members/members of the Board of Deacons who later handed that pastor his walking papers on grounds he demonstrated he wasn’t a good fit with their congregation.
That may have been the message, but he demonstrated two things which pastors or someone involved whose job is is to speak publicly and motivate audiences:
- Know your audience...including what topics may be touchy/sensitive to them.
- Following #1....understand one needs to demonstrate discretion in choice of topics and the manner in communicating said topic in a sermon.
He obviously failed to take those points into account and ended up enduring the negative resultant consequences.
"as some hardcore computer techies I know of who scoff in ROTFLOL terms at hardcore Microsoft fans citing Bill Gates’ life story in Horatio Alger terms…especially those which play up his CS techie chops. In actuality, he came from a well-to-do family** "
We all know Gates came from a well to do family. How does that invalidate anything? You have so much contempt for upper middle class while people. What did they ever do to you?