"they were told"- so a friend of a friend told them it was mandatory? there was nothing in the PDF that suggested it was mandatory- you are moving the goalposts here, obviously.

So, exactly who told them this was mandatory? Thier degree counseller? An RA?

Once again- who were these "university leaders" that the original post claimed were saying all these things CW?

You can split hairs all you like, try to find some kernal of truth in what the original poster posted here- but the bottom line is- the entire thread starter is based on a false premise.

Leslie- your linky no worky.

CW- I am sure that, at some point, a student has to agree to a degree plan, apply for admission, decide on a vocational program etc, just like it is for pretty much any college in the US.

They had to, at some point, make a choice in what type of education that they wish to choose, and where to live.

You know, it is funny- without fail, you and every person that claims to be "conservative" decries the idea that some poeple have no choice in the place that they live. Blacks could move out of the inner city, yadda yadda, they just don't choose the harder choice.

This one is truly a no-brainer- either enter the program, accept the curiculum, or don't- it is not even a hard choice.

There is NO level of anyone being "forced"

The best you got is some kid may have misunderstood that they had to take the curiculum as presented?

for what degree program?

What kind of mandatory? Mandatory- as in, you won't graduate if you don't accept this program?

How did they come to this conclusion that this was "mandatory"?

I posted 2 comments from Delaware RAs who noted that the program was indeed mandatory as they saw it.
I posted the Vice-President of the University saying that indeed students were told that the program was mandatory.
I told you that it has nothing whatsoever to do with a degree, rather it is a condition of living in the dorm.

Students arrive at their dorm, which they chose for whatever reason, not being aware of this indoctrination program. They are told to take part in a mandatory program, part of which includes their RA asking them about their sexual feelings, or acknowledging that since they are white they are racists by definition, or that womyn are oppressed even though they make up 60% of the university studenty body. Being a university, they are required to live at dorms for 2 years and they probably can't transfer. This is partially funded by state taxes. You see no problem with this, and you maintain that students "chose the program," and you provide no evidence to back up your position. Got it.

So, what is your point, quick?

What you have done is come up with some vague comments that poeple "might" have been feeling it was mandatory- and also- as far as moving into a dorm and into some phantom "mandatory" program- which, of course, doesn't exist and never existed except in the minds of possibly a couple of confused RAs, at best.

Also- it also means that the students that MIGHT have believed it was mandatory (there is no evidence of this, we have to go on a word that someone, somewhere, might have thought it mandatory, we have 0 concrete evidence of this- nothing that would pass the sniff test for anyone except those "true believers" in the entire lie of this thread- we have some maybes and might haves.

Also- when did these students see thier degree plan with this "mandatory" class/program in it? If there were any evidence of this- it would be in thier degree program, and, at some point, they would have had to CHOOSE this curriculum as part of thier education.

when I go to the registrar, and go on-line for a degree in ANY state college- if you want a dorm, that dorm has it's own mission statement, usually, and there are also some purely housing dorms. At some point, you are going to be told what one dorm is all about, and how it goes with your degree program or study hours or whatever.

You have to pretty much have your head up your fourth point of contact to get into this dorm and not know what the heck is going on.

In other words- probably somebody gullible and clueless enough to vote for GW- TWICE - before they FINALLY pay attention and look around and say "oh, I signed up for a degree in physical edumacation, not all this larnin' stuff"

And then complain that they may have thought it mandatory-

Hey- just out of curiosity- how do you feel about poeple that go into major credit card debt and blame it on the credit card companies? Or do you assign some personal responsibility to reading the statements and reading the terms of the loan to the person that ran the card up in the first place?

It is always interesting to me to see how little personal responsibility comes into play for "conservatives" when something like this comes up- at what point does the person CHOOSING to enter the U of D have to, you know, read thier dorm handbook and stuff like that?

I was also not aware that anyone is FORCED to attend U of D. You mean there is not another college, on the east coast, in one of the most densely populated areas in the nation, that a person could go get a nice christian indoctrination?

If you want to see REAL mandatory indoctrination, I suggest you go here:
http://www.bju.edu/

This was the university that started the anti-mccain push poll.

You see, THAT would be an institution of indoctrintion- not some thing like we have here- which, is, of course, at it's core, an entire made up issue based on lies and trumped up concerns.

I am sorry- this is a cooked up issue by poeple that desperately need SOMETHING to show that they are right- when their entire premise for the foundation of thier little rant is false.

Bottom line is- only one of the questions here have any basis in reality- and it is only because it really has nothing to do wiht the U of D.

I would enter the program just out of curiosity, had I the opportunity- to see what the real deal is here.

This is immersed/facilitated learning- a really, really good way to get into the context of the subject being learned- and, when you read all the documents in context of the college setting, it has very little to do with forcing a philosophy down anyone's throat, and more to do with a learning enviroment. Pages an Pages on "learning excellence" rather than by-rote didactic classes.

Conservatives just need something to get thier panties all up in a wad because thier ideology is coming to a screaching, slow death. Elected conservative leaders, with the only possible exception of Ron Paul, are a bunch of sexual predators, corrupt thieving scoundrells, and have used money and lies to buy votes from gullible conservatives- just like the liberals did prior to Reagans ascension to power.

If this is the best that you got as an example of some forced reverse racism argument- man, you guys are really, really grasping at straws.


When U of D goes to this length to control student's behaviors:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University

General rules
Freshman and sophomore residence hall students must sign out before leaving campus; students with junior and senior privileges may leave without signing out between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.. Curfew is at 10:25 p.m., and residence hall students must be in their own rooms and quiet at 11 p.m. Lights must be out by midnight.
Each student is provided with a filtered e-mail account. Using unfiltered Internet access via computer, mobile phone, or satellite phone is prohibited for residence hall students. The university provides content-filtered Internet access for student use that blocks pornography, "lurid violence," racial hate, and other "objectionable content." Internet filters also block Wikipedia in the dorms (but not the library), as well as some blogs and all chat groups and other forms of "unmoderated expression." DVD/VCRs are not allowed in residence halls; DVD players on computers cannot be used for watching films. Televisions may be used only as monitors to play video games.
Residence hall students are forbidden to go to movie theaters or, when visiting local homes, to watch any films with a rating higher than a G rating. Residence hall students are not permitted to play, use, or own video games that are rated T, M, or Ao or that include profanity, sensual or suggestive dress, rock music, graphic violence, or demonic themes.
Students may not listen to country, jazz, New Age, rock, rap, or contemporary Christian music.[74]
Residence hall students are permitted to work off-campus only until 10:25 p.m. on weekdays and midnight on weekends, and students may not solicit door-to-door without a retail license or permission from the dean of students. [75]
The University will not allow anything displaying the logos of Abercrombie & Fitch or its subsidiary Hollister to be "worn, carried, or displayed" on campus even if the logos are covered because these companies have "shown an unusual degree of antagonism to the name of Christ and an unusual display of wickedness in their promotions."[76]

[edit] Male dress code
Men's hair must be traditionally styled with a conservative cut. Hair must not be colored, highlighted, shaved, shelved, tangled or spiked. Sideburns may not reach past the lower opening of the ear. No facial hair is permitted; students must be clean shaven. (Some exceptions are made for older students.)
Men may not wear earrings, necklaces, or bracelets. Tattoos and body piercings are forbidden.
Socks are required at all times.
Hats may not be worn indoors except in athletic facilities.
Sunday dress includes a coat, tie, dress shirt, dress shoes, dress or dressier casual pants.
Morning dress on class days consists of a dress shirt (no denim or chambray) with tie, dress or ironed casual pants (no jeans, cargo, carpenter, or sloppy pants), dress or leather casual shoes. Shirt collar and tie knot should show beneath a sweater.
Afternoon dress consists of a collared shirt (no crew necks), neat casual pants, dress or casual shoes (no slippers or sandals).
Recreation and work dress may include jeans and t-shirts. Sleeveless athletic shirts may be worn during indoor activities only. Shorts may be worn by participants at athletic events but not by spectators.[77]

[edit] Female dress code
General and classroom dress for women is a dress or a top and skirt. Loose-fitting pants may be worn between female residence halls, to athletic events, to local area residences, and when participating in activities such as ice-skating, white-water rafting, and skiing. Women may never wear shorts outside the residence halls and the fitness center. Underwear should not be exposed in public, and colored underwear should not be visible through outer clothing. All clothing should fit correctly without clinging, and there should be at least a 3/4-inch fold of fabric on both sides of the hips and bust. This "ease" may be measured by standing straight and pinching the loose fabric on both sides of the hips and bust line.

The middle area of the torso may not be exposed, and tops must be long enough to meet the top of the skirt or pants.
Sleeveless tops and dresses may be worn with a blouse, jacket, or sweater; otherwise, sleeves are required.
Necklines may be no lower than four fingers below the collarbone.
Tops may be fitted, but not clingy.
Hemlines, slits or other openings may never be higher than the bottom of the knee. Denim skirts are allowed for casual dress but not in class or for other professional events.
Shoes such as combat boots or hiking boots are not permitted.
Hairstyles must be "neat, orderly (no spiking), and feminine. No masculine cuts or cutting edge fads. Hair color must always appear natural."
Tattoos are prohibited. A maximum of two matched sets of earrings are allowed, and they must be worn in the lobe of the ear. No other body piercings are permitted.[78]

Ya, when U of D gets to this point- lets talk- but until then- the original posters thread starter is pure fecal material, and a product of right wing blogs, and the Goebells like trumping up an scapegoating tactics used to high effect.


BTW- Bob Jones recieves goverment money as well.

CruisingRam, is this debate still going on? I thought you debunked the primary source article.

Oh well, argument for its own sake has its own small amusements. I shall join the fray.

Ahem; What these educators are forcing their students to do is WRONG. They are forcing their students to become SUBSERVIENT to minorities, gasp! They should be punished mercilessly; someone call in an airstrike! With Napalm!

Please. What sources do we have here? A far-right internet tabloid, a blog posted by excitable university students. No facts, none at all. I'd like to see someone do what cruisingram is asking; can you actually back up any of your claims with EVIDENCE that this program A) Defames and deprecates whites, and B.) Is mandatory to attend?

Let's say they are being truthful. It is a FACT the training was not mandatory. Agree or Disagree??



You have yet to question the most important question. Who told these students it was mandatory.


Ands again I am willing to take on the bigger question. Do you all have a clue what indoctrination means???

Are whites made to recite... "I am a racist pig... I can't help myself!!"

I decided to do a little researcch and googled the schools definition of Racist. Low and behold I come up with a website... based in Oakland, California. And there I see all the information the FAIR article was talking about.

Here is the link to the page. Judge for your self:
http://www.youthtogether.net/mcm/index.php...5&Itemid=39

Going back to Conservative thought process.

from the cited conservative website "worldnetdaily"



Since when was a handout gotten from the world Wide Web written by some youths in another State met the level of sophistication to be called "training Documents." of the University of Deleware.

Are you seriously going to be delusional enough to say being given a handout passed around in a class meets the the degree of severity the word indoctrination connotes??

Again I make this analogy. I had to learn about Freud in a Psych class, was I therefore indoctrinated to his beliefs??

So even IF, it was mandatory, which it was NOT, how does reading a definition of racism that states All whites are racist meet the standard to be called indoctrination??

I didn't post anything from a "blog" and you are the second poster to make reference to it. I posted actual manuals from the school, as well as the words of the University vice-president apologizing for the fact that students were told the program was mandatory.

Since you insist - Here is a link to a blog. On which, you will find an audio file and transcript of a conversation between blogger / journalist Bryan Preston (BP) and Dr. Linda Gottfredson (LG) and Dr. Jan Blits, both of the University of Delaware.

Highlights:


As I posted earlier, I am least concerned with the racial thing in our topic and the most concerned with the PC brainwashing. These RAs had one-on-one sessions where they questioned students about their views on homosexuality, abortion, when did they discover their sexual orientation. That's just wrong, and to pressure kids and tell them it's mandatory really is more like "re-education" than education.

Since some of you are so sure that this was optional and not required perhaps you could explain what you would do if your boss (teacher, driving instructor, whatever) emailed you insisting that you show up for a mandatory "optional" meeting. Then when you missed it, he booked you for a mandatory "optional" 1:1 session to discuss it and asked you when you discovered your sexuality. I'm sure that would be a-o-k with everyone here, as long as it was for a good cause, right?

Are RAs staff members? If not, were they told by staff that meetings were mandatory?

I don't know the answer to that. All I know is that RAs can make your life easy or hard, and blowing off their big important initiative, or answering "incorrectly" in your 1:1 meeting about gay identity is not the way to the easy life.

The University suspended the program in question, so there had to be at least some problems with it, no?

I assume that you're in College and/or went there. Just a hunch.

RA's do dictate policy. I only lived in the dorm one semester, but in many cases RA's are a big part of the structure for living on campus. If an RA were to have told me I have to go to a meeting, I probably would've gone. You all most likely would've too.

Yeah, there're problems with it, I just don't think the problems should be attributed to the university. People tend to abuse any kind of authority. Even meaningless authority.


I have a bad case of senioritis but I've never lived in a dorm, thank God. I question how likely I would be to go to one of these mandatory meetings, or at least not speak up sooner, unless the mandatory meeting had something to do with something like cleaning up a communal bathroom. Young adults don't seem to have a problem skipping classes and flunking out. I wonder how RAs could cow them.

Sure... some people will go and some won't. Funny enough, as you probably can attest, when you're a freshman and just coming to school you are far more apt to go to something like this then say... as a senior. Right?

Ok- follow me. Just like orientation, or any other "new student" class, this probably would be attended by the very people who live in the dorm- new students. Seems logical.

I don't think it's about "cowing" anyone, but rather that kids were told they had to go, so they went. I think a certain amount of time on campus changes perspective.

SO what??

Again, let's say the student THOUGHT this was mandatory, how do you go from a mandatory diversity training with questionable handouts, to the University of Deleware are indoctrinating the students to believe that "all whites are racist.."

Well, umm..... didn't the program basically say that? Weren't some students "coerced" (at best) to go?

Am I missing something in translation here?

As I've said, I post in between work. If there's information I've missed... please shoot it at me.

I linked the document here. The first page says "University of Delaware Office of Residence Life Diversity Training." It's from August of 2007. It contains the paragraph I excerpted before. It essentially says that all white Americans are racists. Do you read this differently? They defined "racist" this way and they taught about "racism."




This wasn't a handout passed out in a class, but a handout from an in-dorm meeting. Subtle difference, but not the same thing. I went through a diversity training last year, and that sure felt like indoctrination. Same thing with the silly sexual harassment seminar we had at work.

Anyway, the content and subject is not that big of a deal for me, rather I don't like requiring students to sign up for your cause in order to live comfortably in their dorm. Unless they offer a dorm for every point of view, not just the 'correct' ones.

edit - I'm no fan of World Net Daily either*, so here is the seminar that used the material. Shakeer Abdullah does these all across the country.




* WND is home of questionable articles like this one.

No the program didn't basically say that. It's a website... I posted it in my last post 4 up. Click on the link and you are going to see the definition of racist, reverse racism, and everything else. ( I read the post by C-Whey, and am not sure where the definitions came from, the website may have gotten it from a differet source than the university, so i have to retract this statement)

IT's about carefully wording things to get the best effect out of you conservatives. The original source cited in this debate was "world Net Daily"

In their article they state:



Then it goes on to define racist. Nowit's got the "beat down white guy" mentality that conservatives seem to have red hot.. you are no longer asking the appropriate questions.

To be honest I don't know how you didn't hear this story and your first instinct be to say "smells funny"

You think a University is going to mandate that whites start thinking of thems selves as racists?? Yet, somehow worldnetdaily knew that you would believe it.

Anyways, you should have question what excerpts, what training manual. I googled that definition and went through the links until I found the source. If you click on the link above you will see all the definitions.

The article by worldnetdaily is not saying that this is what the program is essentially about, they are merely giving you an excerpt. The most sensationalizing excerpt, the excerpt that will have the conservative in you chaffing at the bit and seeing red. The excerpt that is nothing more but some terms and definitions of a website.

So that's your training manual... a website... that the whole indoctrination to this idea "that all whites are racist..." a handout. No class, no ritual, no put your hand over your heart and repeat after me.

I'ts like watching lemmings... one says its indoctrination and everyone else follows suit. My question is and remains (and has yet to be answered)
how does reading an off the wall definition of racism that states "All whites are racist" meet the standard to be called indoctrination??

All Whites are Racist University leaders claim

Is the title of this thread- a proven lie. No university leaders claimed this- in fact, when it was found out that POSSIBLY some student didn't bother to read his degree plan, his dorm handout, etc etc- might have thought this was mandatory- this doesn't rise to the level of "indoctrination" OR "university leaders claim"

And really, you have to wonder about anyone that really takes an RA seriously, I certainly never did. Except, of course, to make sure they were invited to the dorm party so they don't call the cops on you.

when, in fact, "to thier horror" ACTUAL leaders of the university PUBLICALLY said "it is NOT mandatory"

so, in fact, as usual, gullible conservatives bought the blogger line, hook, line and sinker.

I just got to figure out how to make money off gullible conservatives. Maybe I can claim liberals are trying to take over good swamp land in florida and they need to buy it from me now, site unseen, in order to keep the liberals at bay.

The main issue isn't whether this is mandatory. The issue is that it was put forward at all. Note that the University leaders didn't indicate they didn't believe in this, or state that it shouldn't be taught...they just said it wasn't mandatory.



This does indeed state that all white people living in the US of European descent are racist. Such a statement is blatantly racist itself, and one can hardly preach tolerance through racism. Further, it brings up other interesting questions. Why just the US? Why just white people of European descent? If European descent is so key, why aren't Europeans themselves racist, and not just those living in the US? This is full of so many holes its beyond ludicrous. Yet the University didn't denounce it, did they? This raises other interest conundrums:

Student Enrollment Demographics
How many students enroll at University of Delaware?

Here's a demographic breakdown of enrollment at UD:

There are 17,212 White Non-Hispanic students, out of a total of 21,238. So, over 85% of the students at UD fall into the above category (whites of European descent). Why is UD admitting so many known racists to its institution? What does that say about them?

I'd say there's probably a similar breakdown of the faculty there. Which raises the question--why is the University hiring so many known racists to teach its students? Again, what does this say about the University? Shouldn't they keep their students from being exposed to such people, much less taught by them?

What about the President of the University itself? Uh-oh....You can see from the pictures that both the former and current Presidents of this fine institution are racists themselves. No wonder racism is so rampant on campus, in both the faculty and the student body--it comes from the very top, and has been pervasive through previous administrations as well! Harker was previously Dean of the Wharton School of Business, where he no doubt practiced and polished his racist ways, and is now finally able to apply them to an entire University!

For the third time, what blogger please? My links were to FIRE and the school itself. Can you please explain what you mean by blogs? On another thread you told me that the Chronicle for Higher Education is a blog, despite the fact that it has been around at least since the 1960's. I would like to know why you question "conservative" sources as being "blogs."

Fire meets the blogger sniff test to me- it is not a real news site- in fact, the very FACT that no REAL news org has put this out is a good piece of evidence showing what a non-issue this is. Fire is nothing more than a group of right wing whiners that make up stuff like this to dispense to places like world news daily- in other words, a blogger site. There is the usual kernal of some small truth in there- but, of course, blown out of proportion and the entire premise a founded on a lie. It is no different than Jerry Falwell's "Klinton Chronicles" - some correct names here and there- but mostly just propagandic fecal material, that doesn't reflect reality in any way.

Gotta wonder about the intellect of ANYONE that believes or reads that site on a regular basis.

I don't believe all whites are racist either- but, in the school setting, I would be more than happy to entertain a debate on that issue.

Once again- you have not shown where "university leaders claim all whites are racist"

You have one excerpt of one document- not exactly a mountain of evidence of anything here, now do we?

Bottom line continues to be true

1) University leaders claimed no such thing (no names of these so-called university leaders have yet to be posted on this thread- anywhere)

2) It is not mandatory- never has been- so that rules out "indoctrination"

The entire premise of the thread continues to be another right wing bald face lie.

In other words- like the usual fecal matter the right wing spreads all over the web.

What is next CW- we going to re-debate the "clinton chronicles" and how clinton killed 1000 poeple or more?

This whole post you are writing is hysterical to me...

Think about all your question... really think about it... why would a universtity primarily White indoctrinate the students to believe that ALL WHITES ARE RACIST??

It makes no sense! Which is why many liberals are dumbfounded why conseratives on this board would EVER entertain such a notion!! When, whoever heard this story, read the story, their bull crap meter should have went through the roof.

As an answer to your other statement



Depends on your interpretation. You also have to understand how they define racism. Basically my interpretationis there needs to be power to be racism. Therefore since the american ower structe is overwhelmingly and disproportionately white... only white can be racist.

And Whites are racist not because they choose to be, but because their privledge isherently woven into the system, due to being the same race as the power structure and system that is racist.

'DEPENDS on your interpretation'?????

Hold on here Droop. Are you one of these Fundie Christians who also say that "flat disc" means "sphere" (The Christian Bible says the world is flat, but the fundies seem to "re-interpret" the meaning of the word because of obvious reason) ??. You know, it depends on interpretation.... *cough*



Seriously, lets look at what they said:

A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. 'The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality.[/u]


It says right here Droop, all white people living in United States are racist. There is no need for any deep interpretation here, and certainly no space for for re-interpretations. It says right there, black on white, All White people in The Unitd States of America are racist.



I think its worth noting that the Black Community in the U.S (as i experienced it) are more racist then the white (A black woman dating white guys for example, is seen as an outcast amongst its peers). So pleeeeeaseeeee.





Added: And I dont know how you can come up with that "only" white people can be racist in the U.S. Racism means the belief of superiority of your own "race" (subjective definition). Thats it. Black people in the U.S are very very racist towards white, so its even (so much irony now) Racist to say that White people are Racist... haha, almost funny......

Well, it is trying to extend out the definition of racism that far out that makes no sense at all my friend- it is as much nonsense as the original poster as well. If only whites have power- then why are there poor whites, many of them in worse situations than, say, black middle class types?

I understand the broad definition- I just don't agree with it- because, the entire definition falls apart because impoverished whites have no more power or access to the "system" than impoverished black, hispanics or anyone else.

I personally don't find whites or blacks any more or less racist than any other group. At the time of this typing, I am in the minority at my job as a white male. most here are Philipino or Black, at this time, could change tomorow- I may be in the majority again- but overall, whites are in the minority in my workplace- and that includes management. I have never once felt excluded or marginalized because of my race, and often socialize with many folks at work, regardless of race.

Racism is a virulent disease in my personal definition, and, like any virus, is no respector of race or gender. The most racist poeple I have ever met in my life where usually southern white women.



So, like much of what the right wing says- it has a kernal of truth, then pure fecal material from then on out.


the definition is stupid- and doesn't do race relations or help empower folks that are TRULY oppressed by saying that only whites in the US can be racist- it is counter-intuitive, intellectually lazy and just plain nonsense.

It is similar to a class on human sexuality where one female radical claimed that 'all men are rapists or want to be" or some other nonsense, and then claimed that a brother teasing a sister about her boobies where akin to rape.

I took the time to verbally beat her into oblivion, and tried my best to try to reduce her to tears.

And that is the way to combat stupid ideas- not to trump up and lie about the issue- but to destroy it head on and out in the open.

That being said- the perfect place to expound upon, tear apart or legitmize any school of thought is in, well, school.

RAs aren't 'university leaders" and they never "made the claim"- at best, some RAs made like it was mandatory to some freshmen. The definition of racism was part of someone's paper at some place- but they were NOT forced to agree with this definition- clearly- they where in some kind of facilitated/immersed learning program, or some folks were, and perhaps the size and complexity of the "experiment" made for some misunderstandings.

But the original poster's claim is debunked, and an outright right-wing lie.

And Jamesearl- I don't know where you come from or who you know, but my experiance would be just the opposite. When I dated a black woman, in South Carolina, back in the 80s, when there was still quite a bit of overt racism in that area, the other black women were very envious of her ability to 'snag a white man"- I didn't know any better- I was just a hick from Alaska, and was just happy that a beautiful woman like that would pay me the time of day.

how was i supposed to know that there was some racist reason for me not to be dating outside my race? Couple white guys gave me flak about it- but I never cared what they had to say anyway.

So, does that mean if four black guys beat up a white guy, because he is a white guy, thats not an exersize in power and thus racism?

I see your line of thinking here Moif- but the analogy falls apart- they could be just fighting the oppression here my man

No- a much better analogy is a black CEO that only hires blacks- actively discriminating against whites, simply because he does not like whites. That would be racist, in the same manner if a white CEO did the same thing.

It may not happen as often- but it does happen.

There are cases of reverse racism, in fact, happens all the time, and, like I pointed out in the Jenna case- can't ya find better examples to pin a 'reverse racism" claim (in the Jenna case, it was "can't you find a better person to rally around then a thug like Michael Bell)

A good case for reverse discrimination could be made here:

http://www.courttv.com/news/2007/1031/da_ap.html

Jordan, who is black, has repeatedly lost appeals in the 2005 case of 35 white former employees who said they were fired because of their race. This week, a federal judge refused to delay payment of the judgment, opening the door to the possible seizure of assets of his office.

So, Jordon, who is black, practised a form of racism against whites- and a court sided with the 35 white employees. Jordon held the power over the white employees- and fired them based purely on race. And in the meantime, put in jeoperdy the entire office of the DA, literally loosing the actual building in the 3.7 million dollar judgement.

What happened in U of D is a complete over the top propaganda attempt by FIRE.

Yes, there is such a thing as 'reverse racism"

No, all whites aren't racist.

And these things are being explored, appropriately and in context, in a voluntary manner at U of D.

Oh yeah, and the original poster outright lied with the headline of this thread.

...and so how is that not racist anyway? I'm sorry but I don't buy that. ANY decision based on a racial perception, no matter who you are is racism. Pure and simple.

Oppression might justify retaliation, but that doesn't mean the retaliation isn't just as racist as the oppression. I've read, and seen images of white South Africans being burned alive by black South Africans, including new born babies! Are you going to tell me that those people weren't murdered due to a racist perception? How does a baby even fit the profile of an oppressor?

I was being more esoteric perhaps- but I can see your point.

I suppose it depends somewhat on the motivation. did they want to beat someone up simply because they wanted to find a white person to beat up? Or was it robbery?

Retaliation- no matter how horrid or wrong, may not be neccesarily racist, but a wrong headed attempt to right an old wrong.

Racism may be a bit more subtle than that (or may not)

If four black guys beat me up because I owe them drug money- they aren't neccearily racists, they are brutal loan sharks.

I would say someone that targets another for some sort of bad thing simply based on what thier race is would meet my personal definition of racism.

I will start by saying I don't fully agree or disagree with the definitions. But i can say you certainly fit into some of the categories.

James Earl, to understand what somebody is saying is not to agree or disagree with thim. it merely means you comprehend their point. You are truly being intellectually lazy if you refuse to go deeper than what you WANT to think they are saying.

I question you this... How do they, not I , but they define race, racism, white priviledge, and so on? Without understanding this, you will lack the knowledge to to interpret why they believe all whites are Racist.

Even when your telling me how crazy i am, you are highlighting the wrong part of the definition, which explains how they define racism. I mean you are completely right, the fact that they call all whites needs no special interpretation. But don't you think you should first wonder their interpretation of what IS racism or a Racist. I know.. too much reading.

One o fthe first things you learn, if you took a second to truly understand would be, They don't define racism or racist like it is commonly defined. Guess in you rush to blast me you couldn't read the first sentence of what is right there on "Black and White". Allow me to point it out for you, take my hand.



Now you can agree or disagree, but it is obvious that this is the line you should focus on. If you use what is commonly thought to be the definion of "racist" and then apply that definition to the sentence that all white are racist... well you just made a huge boo boo in logic. You have to listen to, understand, and use their definition to understand what they're saying.

You look , like many of us, (and i believe this is what they are saying is the problem) as a racist in individual terms. You likely use a common definition such as...



Since any individual can have a belief, it make racism and subsequently, a racist, an individual choice by this definition. thus any one can choose to be a racist. By using this interpretation of racist then reading all Whites in the US are racist... it is the equivelant to hearing "all whites choose to think they are the superior race." Which is blatantly false... then to hear "only whites can be racists" can only throw more salt on the wound.

So now you see what I mean by interpretation. Again, you have to apply their definitions to understand what they are saying. And once you do this while what they say may still seem incorrect, it will no longer seem like some sort of outlandish statement.

Also the fact that you made that last statement, hat Blacks are more racist than Whites, isa topic we should debate.. but not here.

CR


I disagree that is nonsense, but not sure how far I want to take it in his debate. To say that every white isn't able to take advantage of white priviledge does not mean white priviledge does not exist.

I love bringing up this study, again the MIT study



So basically, yes Whites have the same hurdles of poverty that any minority has, but after overcoming the hurdles that poverty delivers, do white further have to jump the hurdles of race?? And that is what is meant by white priviledge.




Again... to disagree or agree is not the same as understanding. I thik if people understand, though they may still call it fecal material, but they won't call it racist.


MOIF


Exactly!!! ... well not exactly... It is an exercise of individual power, but not systematic power. It is power over an individual, not a race of indiviuals. If you read their full definition of racist at the bottom in parantheses it says



Reading this we can conclude by their definition that any individual can discriminate, be prejudicial, or hostile to another person or group based on race.



Anything but pure and simple. Merely an individual belief.


If we use the definition you put forward one can only agree with your statement.

The definition I put forward is the definition of the word racist. In effect, your not arguing with me, but with the etymology of the English language. There is no way the word racist means 'a member of a privilged race'.

Your wrong on 2 parts in that very short post.

First, the definition you use is not "the" definition of the word racist, it is "a" definition of the word racist. There is a difference we agree?? Since you yourself posted a link with various definitions of racism, racist and if we were to pick up different dictionaries we will find even more.


Secondly, I'm not arguing the etymology, of any wordof any language. My argument was pointing out the fact that they are defining racism, and thus, a racist differently than is commonly the case. Your statement "There is no way the word racist means 'a member of a privilged race'." means you are the one arguing that point, not me.

You know a thread has gone off-topic when half a page of posts is arguing the definition of a word.

President U of Del drops program.



I don't think anyone misrepresented the purpose, which was probably to create a debate and to use critical thinking, I think people take issue of being called a racist solely based on the fact that they are white and were born in the U.S..



Kind of hard to drop a program that many say didn't exist....

I think many of the bloggers out there blew this out of proportion by saying it was mandatory, which brings out words like "indoctrination".

Just typing in "University of Delaware all whites are racist" in Google will get you 161,000 pages to poke around in.

In any case, the school has dropped the program, we can all go back to our racist lives.

Ataal, thats half the fun!

I was not born in the USA.



Droop.

The definition I used fits all the criteria listed. The UD definition does not.


Very well.

I still hold to the contention that their definition is a made up definition designed to fit a politically biased preconception.

All I see here is a university wanting to avoid controversy during an election cycle that was a trumped up issue brought on by a right wing conspiracy site.

It is too bad- I do think it was a very good program upon reading the PDFs involved, really the best type of CONTEXT learning, rather than 'BY rote" learning, done in by some self styled right wing whack jobs that mischaracterized the entire type of learning process, to great avail.

It is no different than liberals claiming that ANWR up here is the "serengeti of the north"

It is not true- but enough idiots bought that line of crap, hook, line and sinker as well.

I have no concerns with the overall gist of the program, my problem lies in the outlandish statements made therein. It may have been a right-winger nutjob that started the ball rolling, but there are obviously a lot of people out there that agree with them, and as such, accountability has to trump sometimes. Just ask the Dixie Chicks.

Besides I think you said it best:



I couldn't have said it better myself!

Difference is- no one lost any civil rights here, no guns breaking down doors and stealing babies in the wee hours of the morning, no one was being denied housing, or a degree, and really, no one was forced to do anything, at any point.

All that was asked was for some students to make a leap in understanding and taking on a new learning style.

NO student was forced to admit all whites were racist- and in fact, no one has claimed this- the claim is that there was some sort of indoctrination going on (there wasn't) that there was some sort of mandatory acknowledgement that all whites are racists (there wasn't)- etc etc.

All I'm saying is when there is a perceived or otherwise problem, it's good to see people making a stand for what they believe in. We know the program wasn't mandatory, but within that program, there were some pretty outlandish claims. We hold our academic authorities to a higher standard for good reason. Just because Foxnews and conservative bloggers started it, doesn't mean it holds no credence.

There wouldn't be much to change in the program and the fact that the U of Del just sort of swept it under the rug doesn't look too good in their defense. I hope they revise the program a little and then allow some public scrutiny to shut the bloggers up once and for all. Maybe then we can all focus our attention to some real racial injustices.

Lots of outlandish claims are made in academia, and at some point, someone has to back up those claims to "publish"- the single most important part of "real" science- you must publish in an accempted journal of science, in order to further a theory or idea- no matter how outlandish the question may be at the time.

This leads to conversation of how to PROVE that claim, and methodology in how to back up OR disprove that claim.

This is where I have a problem with the results of the blogger stifling this proccess through intimidation and lies.

that is a real problem.

I can, as an academic, make an outlandish claim "all black poeple are far less intelligent than white poeple"- okay, irritating and insulting on the outset- but, at some point, I am going to have to prove this claim, and publish the results- that is PRECISELY what of U of D is SUPPOSED to be doing- making outlandish or crazy assertations, that may rock the scientific world, and then backing these up with some proof.

There are cases of this happening- take, for instance, "the bell curve" a racist book that is NOT science, but media.

Outlandish racial claims where made, and where never backed up by a peer reviewed journal, and the claims have been debunked.

In this case- the answer was never possible in response to the question at this point- the question has been quashed, not due to evidence, but due to lies and slander.