Davezorz

iTrader: (2)

Our remote interrogation software was recently updated. It apparently no longer interrogates Master/Slave devices, but Parent/Child ones

How long until orphans complain?

z31maniac

Had to check, apparently I'm a Millenial since I was born in '82 all the way up to 2004 as the last birth year.

Given how much society has changed just in my lifetime, that seems like a pretty large gap to include. I didn't experience participation trophies, crazy leftist college professors trying to make me Sual Alinsky Jr, or many other of the crybaby whiny crap associated with that term.

Now that I'm single again, I find I can barely even hold a conversation with a woman that is 10 years younger me. The self-absorbed, uniformed (college grads too) people I meet truly make me wish for a modern plague.

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

I'm afraid that in another 20 years even the French will think of America as a bunch of pussies.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

I've recently been having a similar conversation with an old high school friend of mine down in FL. The conversation began a couple of weeks ago, prior to this thread, and it wasn't really deliberate, just sort of happened.

She was a schoolteacher for about 10 years at the elementary (primary) grade levels. Nowadays, she's some kind of fancy program manager in the county school system. Today's college freshmen were her third-graders ten years ago, so she's probably in a pretty good position to objectively analyze the situation and provide context.

Excerpts of chat follow. Blue is me, red is her.

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

I am happy to have Joe on the forum.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

So, I recently came upon this article. I'll post the article in toto first, and then discuss subsequently. I've highlighted the one passage which I found redeeming.


Can colleges protect free speech while also curbing voices of hate?

By Nick Anderson and Susan Svrluga November 10


A member of the black student protest group Concerned Student 1950 addresses a crowd at the University of Missouri in Columbia after the announcement Monday that system President Tim Wolfe would resign. (Jeff Roberson/AP)

College campuses across the country have plunged into an intense debate that pits free-speech advocates against those who want to rein in insults, slurs and other offensive expressions.

Student uprisings at Yale, the University of Missouri and elsewhere show a passionate desire to confront racism and bigotry in all its forms, from the disgustingly overt — a fecal swastika smeared on a bathroom wall in Columbia, Mo. — to the subtle or even unintentional offenses known as “micro-aggressions.”

But the drive to combat hurtful and hateful speech is colliding in some places with principles that educators have long held dear: freedom of speech and academic expression. Universities are struggling to strike a balance as they seek to foster a climate that is at once tolerant of racial and cultural differences but also unafraid of a robust clash of viewpoints.

“Every college president faces a challenge in creating a welcoming and productive environment but at the same time encouraging the free exchange of ideas,” said Terry W. Hartle, senior vice president of the American Council on Education. “A lot of ideas can be very unwelcoming. How you handle those is something that a lot of people worry about.”

On Tuesday evening, Yale officials addressed the debate head-on. They told the university community that they embrace the school’s diversity and want to ensure that all groups are treated with respect. But they also emphasized the centrality of speech on the Ivy League campus.


Yale students march in New Haven, Conn., on Monday in solidarity with minority students who are decrying racism on campus. (Isaac Stanley-Becker/For The Washington Post)


“We also affirm Yale’s bedrock principle of the freedom to speak and be heard, without fear of intimidation, threats, or harm, and we renew our commitment to this freedom not as a special exception for unpopular or controversial ideas but for them especially,” Yale President Peter Salovey wrote in a joint statement with a dean.

Many academics are heartened that students from minority groups feel emboldened to speak out forcefully against indignities they have suffered quietly for generations. The abrupt resignation Monday of the University of Missouri System’s president — amid pressure from civil rights protests over his response to troubling racial incidents at the school — showed the surging power of these student voices.

Derald Wing Sue, a professor of psychology and education at Teachers College at Columbia University, said events in Missouri showed the results of students’ pent-up frustration at having to routinely endure insulting expressions of bias. “It is cumulative,” Sue said. “Years of being discriminated against, being fatigued and tired of having to take it.” A racial epithet or a swastika, in that environment, he said, can be “the match, the spark, that creates the explosion.”

Others fear that colleges are jeopardizing freedom of expression, including the freedom to make verbal mistakes, a core academic value. Robert Shibley, executive director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said he worries about a rising tendency toward censorship on campus. Shibley cited the rapid expulsion of two University of Oklahoma students in March after they participated in a fraternity’s racist chant, captured on a video that went viral online.

“Anytime someone is punished for pure expression, that is an attack on the principles of free speech,” Shibley said. “It’s not the government’s job to pick what speech is good and what speech is bad. We’ve always said the remedy for bad speech is more speech.”

University of Maryland President Wallace D. Loh faced a similar situation in March when the school learned about a racist, sexist e-mail a student had sent to members of his fraternity. Loh met with the student, and accepted his apology and decision to leave school for the semester. But Loh and other U-Md. officials concluded that the e-mail, “while hateful and reprehensible, did not violate university policies and is protected by the First Amendment.”

Loh asked the community to forgive the student and start a dialogue to improve the campus climate in College Park.

“We have a responsibility to advance the values that define a community,” Loh said Tuesday. “We have to take affirmative steps in education and outreach before these incidents happen.”

Schools nationwide, public and private, have grappled recently with controversies about speech and expression. Some critics wonder whether colleges have become too politically correct, obsessed with preventing “micro-aggressions” and promoting “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces” — a view expressed in a recent article in the Atlantic headlined “The Coddling of the American Mind.”

The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign last year rescinded a job offer to a professor, Steven Salaita, after critics took offense at the tone of comments he made about Israel on Twitter. The American Association of University Professors later censured the school for breaching principles of academic freedom.

Williams College in Massachusetts was roiled last month after a student club, called Uncomfortable Learning, invited author Suzanne Venker to speak. Many students objected, citing what they saw as Venker’s rejection of feminism. Reaction was so intense that students canceled the event, concerned for her safety. A student then reinvited her, but she declined.

At Wesleyan University in Connecticut, the student newspaper, the Wesleyan Argus, faced a sharp backlash in September after publishing an opinion piece critical of the tactics of the Black Lives Matter movement. The student government later took steps toward cutting the newspaper’s budget for next year.

Rebecca Brill, the twice-weekly paper’s co-editor-in-chief, said she drew two lessons from the episode: that student journalists must listen closely to their community if their work causes an uproar and that free speech is essential to the dialogue.

“This is clearly a nuanced issue,” Brill said. “I would never want to be totally blind to the hurt that the op-ed caused some students.” But the 21-year-old senior from New York added that the piece spawned “interesting and productive” conversations on campus.

“It is a dangerous precedent to try to silence a voice you don’t agree with,” Brill said. “We need to be able to say what we think about issues we’ve given thought to.”

Michael S. Roth, Wesleyan’s president, declared support for free speech after the episode.

“The institution has to protect people against attack that causes harm,” Roth told The Washington Post. “But it should never protect people against ideas that are difficult to digest.”

At Yale, two recent incidents touched off protests late last week. Students alleged that fraternity brothers turned black women away from a party, saying, “White girls only,” a claim the fraternity’s president has denied. The university is investigating the incident.

And a faculty member who lives in one of Yale’s residential colleges wrote an e-mail raising questions about a message from school officials that urged students to consider whether their Halloween costumes might offend someone by stereotyping a culture or race.

“I don’t wish to trivialize genuine concerns about cultural and personal representation,” wrote Erika Christakis, an early-childhood educator. She is the wife of Nicholas Christakis, the Silliman College master. She added: “Nicholas says, if you don’t like a costume someone is wearing, look away, or tell them you are offended. Talk to each other. Free speech and the ability to tolerate offence are the hallmarks of a free and open society.”

The two defended the e-mail later on social media, but their comparisons to debates about free speech and “trigger warnings” only made students angrier.

Many students gathered outside the main library to write messages in chalk. When the first black dean of Yale College walked up, they surrounded him in a remarkable, sometimes tearful, sometimes angry conversation, with the crowd swelling to more than 100. The dean, Jonathan Holloway, mostly listened. The next day, he sent an e-mail that read, in part: “Remember that Yale belongs to all of you, and you all deserve the right to enjoy the good of this place, without worry, without threats, and without intimidation.

“I don’t expect Yale to be a place free from disagreements or even intense argument; I expect you to disagree on a wide range of issues. In so many ways, this is the purpose of our institution: to teach us how to ask difficult questions about even our most sacrosanct ideas.”

At Missouri, protesters angered by racist, anti-gay and anti-Semitic incidents on campus — and what they felt was an inadequate response from administrators — exerted enough pressure to force the system’s president, Tim Wolfe, to resign Monday. Within hours, the chancellor of the Columbia flagship, R. Bowen Loftin, stepped down as well.

On Tuesday night, the campus reeled from posts on Yik Yak, a social-media app, which included a threat to black students and a post that read, “Well tomorrow Mizzou will really make national news.” MUAlert, the university’s online emergency information center, released a statement saying that the university “is aware of social media threats and has increased security.”

Earlier Tuesday, the campus police sent a message to all students urging them to report immediately all “hateful and/or hurtful speech or actions” they see.

“While cases of hateful and hurtful speech are not crimes,” the message said, if the people involved are students, the university can discipline them.

While many people celebrated the chance to change campus culture and send a strong message that bigotry would not be tolerated, others wondered where and how the line would be drawn for unacceptable speech.

“In the U.S., it is not a crime to be a racist moron. So the university cannot punish students simply for being bigoted,” said Ben Trachtenberg, an associate law professor at Missouri who agrees with the protesters that there are some real problems with race on campus. “So it does create some tension when people say things that are both entitled to First Amendment protection and extremely hurtful. The line between mere bigotry and actual harassment and threats is not always obvious.”


https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...eee_story.html

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Apart from the one passage which I highlighted above, I'm offended by the fundamental tenor of the article (see, straight white cisgendered males can be offended, too). In exploring whether "hate speech" can be curbed while still protecting "free speech", the article adopts a fundamental assumption that "hate speech" ought to be curbed in the first place.

This is distressing.


What troubles me especially is that, in recent years, I found myself AGREEING with the ACLU from time to time. When I was a kid, the ACLU was an organization which was portrayed as being stout defenders of socialism, which was a not entirely unwarranted depiction. So to find that they are increasingly becoming the clearest and most rational voice in an increasingly muddled debate strikes me as the tipping point into a sort of bizarro-world.

Here is why I way that. The Tl;DR version is that while the ACLU might not agree with what you have to say, they will apparently defend your right to say it.




HATE SPEECH ON CAMPUS
Many universities, under pressure to respond to the concerns of those who are the objects of hate, have adopted codes or policies prohibiting speech that offends any group based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.

That's the wrong response, well-meaning or not. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content. Speech codes adopted by government-financed state colleges and universities amount to government censorship, in violation of the Constitution. And the ACLU believes that all campuses should adhere to First Amendment principles because academic freedom is a bedrock of education in a free society.

How much we value the right of free speech is put to its severest test when the speaker is someone we disagree with most. Speech that deeply offends our morality or is hostile to our way of life warrants the same constitutional protection as other speech because the right of free speech is indivisible: When one of us is denied this right, all of us are denied. Since its founding in 1920, the ACLU has fought for the free expression of all ideas, popular or unpopular. That's the constitutional mandate.

Where racist, sexist and homophobic speech is concerned, the ACLU believes that more speech -- not less -- is the best revenge. This is particularly true at universities, whose mission is to facilitate learning through open debate and study, and to enlighten. Speech codes are not the way to go on campuses, where all views are entitled to be heard, explored, supported or refuted. Besides, when hate is out in the open, people can see the problem. Then they can organize effectively to counter bad attitudes, possibly change them, and forge solidarity against the forces of intolerance.

College administrators may find speech codes attractive as a quick fix, but as one critic put it: "Verbal purity is not social change." Codes that punish bigoted speech treat only the symptom: The problem itself is bigotry. The ACLU believes that instead of opting for gestures that only appear to cure the disease, universities have to do the hard work of recruitment to increase faculty and student diversity; counseling to raise awareness about bigotry and its history, and changing curricula to institutionalize more inclusive approaches to all subject matter.



QUESTIONS

Q: I just can't understand why the ACLU defends free speech for racists, sexists, homophobes and other bigots. Why tolerate the promotion of intolerance?

A: Free speech rights are indivisible. Restricting the speech of one group or individual jeopardizes everyone's rights because the same laws or regulations used to silence bigots can be used to silence you. Conversely, laws that defend free speech for bigots can be used to defend the rights of civil rights workers, anti-war protesters, lesbian and gay activists and others fighting for justice. For example, in the 1949 case of Terminiello v. Chicago, the ACLU successfully defended an ex-Catholic priest who had delivered a racist and anti-semitic speech. The precedent set in that case became the basis for the ACLU's successful defense of civil rights demonstrators in the 1960s and '70s.

The indivisibility principle was also illustrated in the case of Neo-***** whose right to march in Skokie, Illinois in 1979 was successfully defended by the ACLU. At the time, then ACLU Executive Director Aryeh Neier, whose relatives died in Hitler's concentration camps during World War II, commented: "Keeping a few ***** off the streets of Skokie will serve Jews poorly if it means that the freedoms to speak, publish or assemble any place in the United States are thereby weakened."

Q: I have the impression that the ACLU spends more time and money defending the rights of bigots than supporting the victims of bigotry!!??

A: Not so. Only a handful of the several thousand cases litigated by the national ACLU and its affiliates every year involves offensive speech. Most of the litigation, advocacy and public education work we do preserves or advances the constitutional rights of ordinary people. But it's important to understand that the fraction of our work that does involve people who've engaged in bigoted and hurtful speech is very important:

Defending First Amendment rights for the enemies of civil liberties and civil rights means defending it for you and me.

Q: Aren't some kinds of communication not protected under the First Amendment, like "fighting words?"

A: The U.S. Supreme Court did rule in 1942, in a case called Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, that intimidating speech directed at a specific individual in a face-to-face confrontation amounts to "fighting words," and that the person engaging in such speech can be punished if "by their very utterance [the words] inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." Say, a white student stops a black student on campus and utters a racial slur. In that one-on-one confrontation, which could easily come to blows, the offending student could be disciplined under the "fighting words" doctrine for racial harassment.

Over the past 50 years, however, the Court hasn't found the "fighting words" doctrine applicable in any of the hate speech cases that have come before it, since the incidents involved didn't meet the narrow criteria stated above. Ignoring that history, the folks who advocate campus speech codes try to stretch the doctrine's application to fit words or symbols that cause discomfort, offense or emotional pain.

Q: What about nonverbal symbols, like swastikas and burning crosses -- are they constitutionally protected?

A: Symbols of hate are constitutionally protected if they're worn or displayed before a general audience in a public place -- say, in a march or at a rally in a public park. But the First Amendment doesn't protect the use of nonverbal symbols to encroach upon, or desecrate, private property, such as burning a cross on someone's lawn or spray-painting a swastika on the wall of a synagogue or dorm.

In its 1992 decision in R.A.V. v. St. Paul, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a city ordinance that prohibited cross-burnings based on their symbolism, which the ordinance said makes many people feel "anger, alarm or resentment." Instead of prosecuting the cross-burner for the content of his act, the city government could have rightfully tried him under criminal trespass and/or harassment laws.

The Supreme Court has ruled that symbolic expression, whether swastikas, burning crosses or, for that matter, peace signs, is protected by the First Amendment because it's "closely akin to 'pure speech.'" That phrase comes from a landmark 1969 decision in which the Court held that public school students could wear black armbands in school to protest the Vietnam War. And in another landmark ruling, in 1989, the Court upheld the right of an individual to burn the American flag in public as a symbolic expression of disagreement with government policies.

Q: Aren't speech codes on college campuses an effective way to combat bias against people of color, women and gays?

A: Historically, defamation laws or codes have proven ineffective at best and counter-productive at worst. For one thing, depending on how they're interpreted and enforced, they can actually work against the interests of the people they were ostensibly created to protect. Why? Because the ultimate power to decide what speech is offensive and to whom rests with the authorities -- the government or a college administration -- not with those who are the alleged victims of hate speech.

In Great Britain, for example, a Racial Relations Act was adopted in 1965 to outlaw racist defamation. But throughout its existence, the Act has largely been used to persecute activists of color, trade unionists and anti-nuclear protesters, while the racists -- often white members of Parliament -- have gone unpunished.

Similarly, under a speech code in effect at the University of Michigan for 18 months, white students in 20 cases charged black students with offensive speech. One of the cases resulted in the punishment of a black student for using the term "white trash" in conversation with a white student. The code was struck down as unconstitutional in 1989 and, to date, the ACLU has brought successful legal challenges against speech codes at the Universities of Connecticut, Michigan and Wisconsin.

These examples demonstrate that speech codes don't really serve the interests of persecuted groups. The First Amendment does. As one African American educator observed: "I have always felt as a minority person that we have to protect the rights of all because if we infringe on the rights of any persons, we'll be next."

Q: But don't speech codes send a strong message to campus bigots, telling them their views are unacceptable?

A: Bigoted speech is symptomatic of a huge problem in our country; it is not the problem itself. Everybody, when they come to college, brings with them the values, biases and assumptions they learned while growing up in society, so it's unrealistic to think that punishing speech is going to rid campuses of the attitudes that gave rise to the speech in the first place. Banning bigoted speech won't end bigotry, even if it might chill some of the crudest expressions. The mindset that produced the speech lives on and may even reassert itself in more virulent forms.

Speech codes, by simply deterring students from saying out loud what they will continue to think in private, merely drive biases underground where they can't be addressed. In 1990, when Brown University expelled a student for shouting racist epithets one night on the campus, the institution accomplished nothing in the way of exposing the bankruptcy of racist ideas.

Q: Does the ACLU make a distinction between speech and conduct?

A: Yes. The ACLU believes that hate speech stops being just speech and becomes conduct when it targets a particular individual, and when it forms a pattern of behavior that interferes with a student's ability to exercise his or her right to participate fully in the life of the university.

The ACLU isn't opposed to regulations that penalize acts of violence, harassment or intimidation, and invasions of privacy. On the contrary, we believe that kind of conduct should be punished. Furthermore, the ACLU recognizes that the mere presence of speech as one element in an act of violence, harassment, intimidation or privacy invasion doesn't immunize that act from punishment. For example, threatening, bias-inspired phone calls to a student's dorm room, or white students shouting racist epithets at a woman of color as they follow her across campus -- these are clearly punishable acts.

Several universities have initiated policies that both support free speech and counter discriminatory conduct. Arizona State, for example, formed a "Campus Environment Team" that acts as an education, information and referral service. The team of specially trained faculty, students and administrators works to foster an environment in which discriminatory harassment is less likely to occur, while also safeguarding academic freedom and freedom of speech.

Q: Well, given that speech codes are a threat to the First Amendment, and given the importance of equal opportunity in education, what type of campus policy on hate speech would the ACLU support?

A: The ACLU believes that the best way to combat hate speech on campus is through an educational approach that includes counter-speech, workshops on bigotry and its role in American and world history, and real -- not superficial -- institutional change.

Universities are obligated to create an environment that fosters tolerance and mutual respect among members of the campus community, an environment in which all students can exercise their right to participate fully in campus life without being discriminated against. Campus administrators on the highest level should, therefore,

• speak out loudly and clearly against expressions of racist, sexist, homophobic and other bias, and react promptly and firmly to acts of discriminatory harassment;
• create forums and workshops to raise awareness and promote dialogue on issues of race, sex and sexual orientation;
• intensify their efforts to recruit members of racial minorities on student, faculty and administrative levels;
• and reform their institutions' curricula to reflect the diversity of peoples and cultures that have contributed to human knowledge and society, in the United States and throughout the world.

https://www.aclu.org/hate-speech-campus

2ndGearRubber

1990 birth here, Can't agree more.



My generation is one of children. It is extremely difficult to actually converse with someone. The only people I find worth being around, are those from single parent working homes who grew up poor. They actually had to work to achieve. They needed to make due, and figure out how to be an adult. So much whining and complaining, constantly wanting praise and validation for no accomplishments. Blaming others for literally every problem.

I work as a mechanic, and watching the "life cycles" of our oil-changers is mind-blowing.

They're so tired, can barely work. "Oh, I can clock-out for lunch?" Up and off they are, nearly skipping. No work but the bare minimum. Bitching about money when they blow it all on bullshit, yet they have basically no tools. Hell, I'm sick of giving ANYONE anything anymore. "Having a 3 year old at home makes it tough to buy more tools". Abortions are cheap, so is birth control or at least pulling out.



As for women, it's even worse. They still have the minds of high-school girls. Except now they're fat, or got knocked up with no baby-daddy in the picture, with a cashier job and no plans for anything else.

JasonC SBB

Not if the reactions come mostly from white "liberals" who have turned feigned outrage into a sport rather than the purportedly offended minorities.

JasonC SBB

All these cries of microaggressions of "sexism" and "racism" have trivialized actual cases or rape and real racism. They're crying wolf.

Reminds me of the dragnet surveillance the gov't likes to do on everyone, instead of actual old-fashioned targeted police work. The former didn't stop any of the recent shootings/attacks.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

^ This.

I'm honestly surprised that no one has yet gotten up and denounced the fact that the meaning of the word "rape" has been effectively diluted by its use to describe all manner of conflicts, many of which involve no actual sexual contact of any kind.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Moving on...

The President of Northwestern University has decreed that racial segregation on campus is perfectly ok, provided that the people creating and enforcing the segregation are members of a minority group.

Weren't whites a minority in South Africa during the Apartheid era? I guess that made it ok.


I’m Northwestern’s president. Here’s why safe spaces for students are important.

By Morton Schapiro January 15

Morton Schapiro is president of Northwestern University.


College presidents have always received a lot of mail. But these days we get more than ever. Much of it relates to student unrest, and most of the messages are unpleasant.

Our usual practice is to thank the sender for writing and leave it at that. The combination of receiving more than 100 emails and letters a day and recognizing that the purpose of many writers is to rebuke, rather than discuss, leaves us little choice about how to respond.

But that certainly doesn’t mean we don’t think long and hard about the issues being raised. Some writers ask why our campus is so focused on how “black lives matter.” Others express a mixture of curiosity and rage about microaggressions and trigger warnings. And finally, what about those oft-criticized “safe spaces”? On this last topic, here are two stories. The first was told to me privately by another institution’s president, and the second takes place at my institution, Northwestern University.

A group of black students were having lunch together in a campus dining hall. There were a couple of empty seats, and two white students asked if they could join them. One of the black students asked why, in light of empty tables nearby. The reply was that these students wanted to stretch themselves by engaging in the kind of uncomfortable learning the college encourages. The black students politely said no. Is this really so scandalous?

I find two aspects of this story to be of particular interest.

First, the familiar question is “Why do the black students eat together in the cafeteria?” I think I have some insight on this based on 16 years of living on or near a college campus: Many groups eat together in the cafeteria, but people seem to notice only when the students are black. Athletes often eat with athletes; fraternity and sorority members with their Greek brothers and sisters; a cappella group members with fellow singers; actors with actors; marching band members with marching band members; and so on.

And that brings me to the second aspect: We all deserve safe spaces. Those black students had every right to enjoy their lunches in peace. There are plenty of times and places to engage in uncomfortable learning, but that wasn’t one of them. The white students, while well-meaning, didn’t have the right to unilaterally decide when uncomfortable learning would take place.

Now for the story from Northwestern. For more than four decades, we have had a building on campus called the Black House, a space specifically meant to be a center for black student life. This summer some well-intentioned staff members suggested that we place one of our multicultural offices there. The pushback from students, and especially alumni, was immediate and powerful. It wasn’t until I attended a listening session that I fully understood why. One black alumna from the 1980s said that she and her peers had fought to keep a house of their own on campus. While the black community should always have an important voice in multicultural activities on campus, she said, we should put that office elsewhere, leaving a small house with a proud history as a safe space exclusively for blacks.

A recent white graduate agreed. She argued that everyone needed a safe space and that for her, as a Jew, it had been the Hillel house. She knew that when she was there, she could relax and not worry about being interrogated by non-Jews about Israeli politics or other concerns. So why is the Black House an issue in the eyes of some alumni who write saying that we should integrate all of our students into a single community rather than isolate them into groups? I have never gotten a single note questioning the presence of Hillel, of our Catholic Center or any of the other safe spaces on campus.

I’m an economist, not a sociologist or psychologist, but those experts tell me that students don’t fully embrace uncomfortable learning unless they are themselves comfortable. Safe spaces provide that comfort. The irony, it seems, is that the best hope we have of creating an inclusive community is to first create spaces where members of each group feel safe.

I suspect this commentary will generate even more mail than usual. Let me just say in advance, thanks for writing.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...18d_story.html

rleete

iTrader: (21)

I suggest "Whites only" signs on the rest of the buildings. Segregation is okay if everyone can do it.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Upon re-reading the above article, one paragraph towards the end sticks out:
My own personal experience has been that houses of worship, and in particular those of Judeo-Christian leaning, tend to be incredibly inclusive. So long as you're not carrying a bomb, nobody is going to care (or even notice) that a protestant enters a Catholic church, a Jewish temple, or even an Islamic mosque. And they're not going to kick you out (or whine that you're oppressing / microagressing them) for engaging in discussions with those present which draws into question certain elements of their faith, such as debating whether intercession within the catholic faith impinges upon idolatry and the "no other gods" policy, or disputes the order-of-operations conflict within Genesis 1/2.

I know this because I have done these things. While Billy Graham gets a lot of press, the majority of religious scholars in the US actually tend to be pretty tolerant and open-minded.



The reason that president Schapiro hasn't gotten any letters questioning the presence of Hillel house or the Catholic Center is that the members of those organizations aren't engaging in segregation and rebuking the presence of anyone who isn't just like them.

hornetball

iTrader: (4)

I'd wager that Schapiro is not a veteran.

The most expert teacher of "uncomfortable learning" is a USMC Drill Instructor. By the time he's finished his work, the "blackest" black and "whitest" white are brothers that would die for each other and will remain friends for as long as they live. Because what is ingrained is that we are individuals defined by our character and honor.

It saddens me the direction this country is going with all the emphasis on group identity. The general atmosphere now is worse than I can ever remember. I hear troubling "group-think" opinions frequently from those I know. It makes me grateful for my military service that brought me into close contact and confidence with people from all walks of life.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

It occurs to me that, despite the fact that we were a bunch of Satan-worshiping metalheads, the youth of my generation were among the most tolerant and inclusive of any in recent memory.

hornetball

iTrader: (4)

"The future's so bright . . . ."

rleete

iTrader: (21)

Maybe they need to build "safe places" for those with open minds and willing to learn.

That seems to be the smallest minority on college campuses these days.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

When I was in school, that space was "the campus, everything within it, and also the entire surrounding community."


This seriously weirds me out. I'm a Cuban who went to school in the deep south at a huge public university (UF), and I never, EVER encountered anything so violently reprehensible that I was unable to deal with it and had to seek emotional shelter in a safe space.

And I know for an absolute fact that the world is not a more hateful, violent, intolerant place than it was 25 years ago. The 70s and 80s absolutely sucked if you were a minority in redneck-country.

So what gives? In all seriousness, what the **** happened that's made a whole generation unable to deal with living in the real world? I mean, I know that it's somehow my generation's fault for raising this generation, but how did we manage to **** things up this badly?

MartinezA92

iTrader: (4)

Lol. Growing up in Palo Alto I saw a lot of this. In high school i got sent to what was basically a political correctness camp. Don't say mean things, don't make jokes about certain things, etc.

It was kind of useless. My jokes only got more crude. People who are easily offended do not stay in our circle of friends for very long.

Palo Alto was a bubble if I've ever seen one. Glad I made it out of there as a normal person. I think.