<p>cavalier302:</p>
<p>You just demonstrated the bottom 25th percentile at UVA.</p>
<p>Uncalled-for, Tarhunt. Just because I questioned your persistent defense of a questionable viewpoint doesn't mean you should attack me personally. It does nothing for your argument or your credibility.</p>
<p>lol, if Tarhunt even knew who cav was he would be eating those words in a second. Seriously, how does that style of argument and failure of comprehension even manage to graduate from UVA?</p>
<p>Even though Tarhunt's points are questionable and I haven't experienced overt racism here at UVA, I would venture to say that people here are far too "aware" of race in social contexts. For example I have met women here who have been hesitant to interact with me because of my race and perceptions of "jungle fever" (They told me so). Does this equate to racism? Not necessarily, but it goes to show that people arent as open to blacks here as they may be elsewhere. To the OP, as a black male, I have been in many situations where I have felt extremely uncomfortable because of my skin color. But you take the bad with the good and I'm sure it would be like this at many other top Universities. If you want to feel as though being black poses no pretext of uncomfort at all, then you should look at HBCUs. After having said all that, I enjoy being a student here and I'm confident you would too.</p>
<p>If you can name a single HBCU that has the academic reputation of UVA and you can knock me over with a feather. Honestly, from what I know of them (and grant it, I only have real experience with a limited number) none would be a viable alternative to UVA, or any other top school.</p>
<p>And honestly, the OP will be just fine. No one is going to tell him UVA is the most racially integrated school, ill be the first one to tell him it ISNT, but he will be fine hanging out with whoever he wants to hang out with, he will have no problems finding people he enjoys spending time with.</p>
<p>Academic reputation isnt everything ehiunno. All I said was that the only place where being black is of no consequence are HBCUs,I never compared them to UVA.</p>
<p>Thats certainly true, but academic reputation is important, and the kind of step down from any top school to an HBCU is a step anyone should be very weary of taking.</p>
<p>thank you all for the replies, the truth have you ever felt that your grades have been affected because of your race? I'm aware that professors have the ability to fail or pass someone based on their opinions rather than on the person's work. And before any one attacks me I have seen this happen to several of my friends who took engineering classes in which the white males received A/Bs the white females received Ds and the blacks received Fs (kinda fishy). The professor had also made some racial slurs, this wasn't at UVA but at Wash U though.</p>
<p>first off, the answer to that question is an emphatic no. professors do not give out grades based on race. i also find it hard to believe that washu is doing that, as the school would face some ridiculous lawsuits which would destroy the school financially.</p>
<p>That story sound stupid and made up, floridastudent. Exams are graded in every class are graded in a race-blind, objective manner.</p>
<p>it's not made up, but if that's what you want to believe then that's fine. Although most people like to believe that race isn't a factor, I'm sure many individuals do use race subconsciously to judge others.</p>
<p>Dude are you flaming us? Don't expect anyone at a decent college to believe that a professor at a top 15 university gives white males As, white females Ds and blacks Fs. Professors simply don't grade that way.</p>
<p>I'm sorry to bring back this thread. I got really busy with work, etc.</p>
<p>Now after reading Tarhunt's #14 post, I can't help but laugh at his discussion of "moral relevance." Yes, Germans were more anti-semitic than Americans 60 years ago, but does that mean they're anti-semitic now? Yes, the South has a greater history of racism, but does that mean that Virginia is more racist than other parts of the United States NOW? I don't believe so, and I find the perpetuation of this negative stereotype of Virginians dismaying.</p>
<p>The questions is: Would the OP feel uncomfortable at UVA? My answer is no. UVA and Virginia is no more racist or unwelcoming than any other parts of the US.</p>
<p>I think the OP would feel uncomfortable at UVA because he's an idiot and wouldn't survive. UVA is not exactly a charm school.</p>
<p>stealing lines from silence of lambs now, cav? ;-)</p>
<p>Haha Cav, I’m sure the OP is not an idiot.</p>
<p>By the way, I meant to type “moral equivalence” instead of “moral relevance.” I think I subconsciously misquoted that because I was amused at the irrelevance of Tarhunt’s ramblings regarding Nazism, German anti-semitism and pre-Civil Rights lynching in this discussion of whether or not the OP would feel comfortable at UVA today.</p>
<p>UVA definitely feels less diverse than schools in, say, the west coast. Minorities therefore would feel more segregated and vulnerable relative to the bigger white student population, especially when comparing its numbers to other peer institutions like Berkeley.</p>
<p>It's hard to compare East Coast schools to the UC's where Berkeley and UCLA are over 40% Asian and only 3% African-American. I've heard complaints of some Asians only hanging out with other Asians over there.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Now after reading Tarhunt's #14 post, I can't help but laugh. Yes, Germans were more anti-semitic than Americans 60 years ago, but does that mean they're anti-semitic now? Yes, the South has a greater history of racism, but does that mean that Virginia is more racist than other parts of the United States NOW?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>*To all:</p>
<p>Im going to respond to this at some length, not because I think it will do a bit of good with Globalist, but because I wouldnt be a faculty member if I didnt like to teach. And this seems like a teachable moment, even if there are few following this thread.</p>
<p>Globalist has used a number of rhetorical tricks and logical fallacies to present an argument, and Im going to refute that argument. I cant refute it succinctly, because he has woven such a Gordion Knot that it must be untangled strand by strand. If there is an easy way to cut it (Alexanders solution), I dont know how that would be.</p>
<p>So, this is long but, for those of you who wish to follow it, it may help you to ferret out meaning when certain of your classmates and/or colleagues use the same sorts of techniques in class, work, or any other situation.*</p>
<p>The boxed quote, above, is an ancient rhetorical trick, and a logical fallacy. Cicero refers to it in the Roman courts, and how it never fails "to disgust the learned and delight the mob." (Note: "mob" is translated loosely from "capite censi," which literally means "head count," but "mob" is probably the closest word to what Cicero meant.) Of course, Cicero used this technique himself, so he wasn't above delighting the mob in violation of his own principles ;-).</p>
<p>The "trick," here, is twofold. One is to divert the argument from the previous line of logic. Any perfectly logical point can be made to seem irrelevant when taken out of context, so the rhetorical trick is to change that context. The next trick is to preface the change of context by attacking it not simply as "in error," but as laughable. Taken together, these two techniques are as old as argument itself, and do an admirable job of carrying the day when the listeners, or readers, are badly educated and/or badly informed.</p>
<p>You can see these techniques in today's political arguments at the highest levels.</p>
<p>The context was, and is, this:</p>
<p>The original question was one about racism at the University of Virginia. I said that the vast majority of whites would welcome the original poster, that there is still a fairly high level of racism in southern and southwestern Virginia, but that students from these places are underrepresented at UVA. I said these things based on my intimate knowledge of that area. I grew up there. I have a large family spread out through that region. I visit often. I spend a lot of time talking to white people from there.</p>
<p>Globalist countered with an irrelevant argument:</p>
<p>
[quote]
For the record, racists exist everywhere - even here in NYC. I witnessed a racial slur just yesterday in Midtown Manhattan.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The argument is irrelevant because it doesnt address the original question which was what to expect at UVA. What takes place in Manhattan is of little concern.</p>
<p>I countered by acknowledging that racists exist in Manhattan but that Manhattan is not relevant. I then countered his new line of thought, which implies that, because everywhere has some racists, everywhere is equally racist. I believe the OP would care about the relative degree of racism, and used a reductio ad absurdum argument to demonstrate how degree of racism can matter, in the following quote:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, they [racists] do [exist everywhere]. But that's not relevant to whether the OP would be uncomfortable at UVA. I suppose that, in 1939, it would have been true that anti-Semites exist everywhere, but that wouldn't have meant that Jews would have felt just as comfortable in Germany as they would have in, say, China.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Globalist responded with this:</p>
<p>
[quote]
I've lived in Alabama and Virginia, and the most vocal and hateful racism I've ever experienced was in Los Angeles. I just don't like how people have a tendency to say racism is more prevalent in a particular place (especially when referring to Virginia and the South in general) because from my personal experience, racism's ugliest head has reared itself in the most diverse and liberal of places - LA, NYC, and London.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Once again, he uses irrelevancies for his argument. For instance, he says he lived in Alabama, which has no bearing on the argument, since we are talking about south and southwestern Virginia. His residency in Virginia might be relevant, but not if its outside south or southwestern Virginia, and not if its of limited duration, or during a time when he was too young to come across and interpret racist opinions and attitudes. It is not clear why or how his time in Virginia is relevant. He asserts that the most vocal and hateful racism he ever experienced was in LA, and this may be true. But it is irrelevant to south and southwestern Virginia. NOTE that his argument IS somewhat relevant to my reductio ad absurdum argument, and Ill get to that in a moment.</p>
<p>My reductio ad absurdum argument did, in fact, use extreme examples (as these arguments do by their definition) to counter Globalists IMPLIED point that, because there are racists everywhere, everywhere is equally racist. His counter to this argument is that the most hateful racism he ever experienced was in LA. This bolsters my argument. Globalist is agreeing that some places are more racist than others. Then he goes on to use another rhetorical trick: the dreaded straw man.</p>
<p>A straw man argument is one that sets up an argument the opponent never made, then knocks it down. A politician might say, My opponent believes that abusing children should be perfectly legal, but I dont agree with him when, in fact, his opponent neither said nor implied anything of the sort.</p>
<p>Globalists straw man argument is this: I just don't like how people have a tendency to say racism is more prevalent in a particular place (especially when referring to Virginia and the South in general). Of course, as we know, I said nothing of the sort. I said nothing about the South and nothing about Virginia IN GENERAL, though I did say some things, from in-depth personal knowledge, about south and southwestern Virginia.</p>
<p>But Globalist also betrays a personal bias when he says especially when referring to Virginia and the South in general. Apparently, he has a connection to Virginia and the South that causes him to want to find that no allegation of unusually high racism in parts of Virginia does or even can exist.</p>
<p>I went on to refute Globalists points by revealing that I was born and raised in southern Virginia and that, in my 50+ years of life, I have lived in most regions of the US, barring New England. I went on to repeat what I know is true: some areas of the US are more racist than others. I then repeated my reductio ad absurdum argument to bolster my point that, just because racists are everywhere does not mean that every place is equally racist.</p>
<p>Globalist responded with a message that reveals much about whats really going here, when he says:</p>
<p>
[quote]
The point I'm trying to get across is that you should be careful of how you characterize your fellow Virginians since people already have negative preconceived notions about you. Yes, there are narrow-minded and racist southerners, but I loathe when people generalize others.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Globalist appears to be implying that the truth is not important, but what is important is that I be careful about saying things about fellow Virginians that might reinforced preconceived notions. There is no talk about whether those preconceived notions might be true and, of course, he once again erects a straw man argument by attributing my comments to all Virginians instead of just to a fairly high level of outright racism in south and southwest Virginia. I did not ever attribute these things to all Virginians even in the south and southwest, let alone all Virginians, generally.</p>
<p>Clearly, Globalist has a bias, and the word loathe would suggest that its a very strong bias, against implying that levels of ANYTHING, be they racism, sexism, or what have you, vary by region. If it is true, as Globalist asserts, that he loathes it when people generalize others, then he must loathe any such generalization, such as women tend to have fewer rights in Saudi Arabia than they do in the US or you will find higher levels of illiteracy in Rwanda than you find in Switzerland, or You will find more Southern accents at the University of Virginia than you will find at the University of Minnesota.</p>
<p>But I didnt think that Globalist had really meant that he loathed every generalization because, as a psychologist, I know that generalization is hard-wired into homo sapiens and is often a very useful tool (though it is often misleading, as well).</p>
<p>We then had posts #10 and #11, which were just more of the same. I used another reductio ad absurdum comparison, agreed again that racists exist everywhere, and asserted that this does NOT mean that all regions of every place on earth have the same numbers of racists. Globalist replied, as always, that because there is racism in LA and NY, it must the same as southern and southwest Virginia, even though he has yet to explain how he has knowledge of southern and southwest Virginia, and how in-depth that knowledge might be.</p>
<p>Then came post #14, the post in question that Globalist attacked. Once again, I acknowledged the truth that racists exist everywhere, as I did all through the discussion (its a prima facie argument). This time, I made a reductio ad absurdum argument without assuming that Globalist would know what that is or how its used, carrying it into the realm of moral equivalency to punctuate the point.</p>
<p>Its important to understand something at this point in the argument. Like its predecessors, post #14 was about making the point (AGAIN) that just because A is a subset of B, and A is a subset of C, does not make B equal to C. Thats the context. Because there are East Asians all over the world, it does not mean there are as many East Asians in Wyoming as there are in China. Because there are high mountains in many parts of the world, it does not mean there are as many high mountains in England as there are in Nepal. Because racists exist everywhere, it does not mean there are as many racists in Stockholm as there are in Praetoria. </p>
<p>Naturally, Globalist decided to use post #14 out of context. He erects yet another straw man when he says: </p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, Germans were more anti-semitic than Americans 60 years ago, but does that mean they're anti-semitic now?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course, I didnt say they were. But it does make a nice straw man.</p>
<p>He then erected yet another one when he said: </p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, the South has a greater history of racism, but does that mean that Virginia is more racist than other parts of the United States NOW?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As Ive pointed out, Ive said nothing about Virginia as a whole, but about my personal knowledge of south and southwest Virginia (in the NOW) compared to my personal knowledge of living for extended periods of time in every part of the US except New England. I make no representations about New England. </p>
<p>Ive also made no comparisons between the South of now and the South of yore. If I were to do so, I would take the conversation into the area of cultural memes, and why Globalist thinks that the principles of memetics apply everywhere but the American South, but thats beside the point. Its another straw man. Globalist has put words in my mouth again. He knocks down an argument I didnt make.</p>
<p>So, there you have it. This is how some of your classmates and/or colleagues go about trying to win debates, by using logical fallacies and straw man arguments in support of personal biases. Perhaps some of you will be able to recognize these things from now on and have the tools to refute them.</p>
<p>Good luck with people who use these techniques. They tend to work hard at them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That story sound stupid and made up, floridastudent. Exams are graded in every class are graded in a race-blind, objective manner.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There is a sub area of psychology concerned with rater bias. If every class at UVA is graded in a completely objective manner, it would be the first such place ever to do that in research going back to at least the 1930s.</p>
<p>Do you have evidence that this is so?</p>