Please review this article at this link http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=58426
BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS


Questions for Debate:

Does this mandatory indoctrination violate the spirit of our American Constitution?

Do you agree that pigmentation of skin can place one in or out of a category of racists? If so why?

Would you support other universities create like programs to indoctrinate white students?

Umm... I love this. Classic. Did someone say that our universities aren't liberal?

I hate that our children are subjected to this malarkey.

It does violate our civil rights. I do also believe that some people are racists, while not all. I also believe that racism is not specific to white people, and that there is no such thing as reverse racism, as racism is racism... regardless of the perpetrator and recipient.

The true problem with this in my eyes is that people at the University of Delaware, particularly people from Delaware, have most likely had little contact with minorities or the interaction of whites with said minorities.

Ever been to Delaware? It's pretty white. I don't mean the snow.

Talk about Baton Rouge or New Orleans or Atlanta... maybe those kids need a class on getting along. Not Delaware.

Furthermore, if one kid gets it, all kids should. It should never be specific to one race, and should show examples of racism from everyone- including Blacks.

Personally, I'd like to question the legitimacy of this article. I find it hard to believe that any university could be this stupid. If it is true, then perhaps the conglomerate universities of delaware would be better off educating their educators, instead of their students.

I find no reliable corrobarating evidence here, I see a lecture on racism by James Jones http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2006/dec/racism120605.html

regarding the reasoning for racism.

I notice Aevens jumped all over it before even trying to substantiate it though- I bet he didn't even do a rudimentary google search to cry "liberal, liberal, liberal"

And rational poeple wonder why right wing wack jobs listen to right wing whack job radio and BELIEVE it.

So- here is the daily news from Delaware U news:

http://chico.nss.udel.edu/udaily/index.html

So I started going through the links that the original world daily article linked too- at best I am thinking- is this some study that they are doing in the hall that is survey related- very possible- and, in the idea of informed consent- it would be ethical and okay to do in a small setting, looking for some sampling survey, in the context of a learning enviroment- but I see NOTHING making any of this "mandatory for all whites"/

http://www.thefire.org/pdfs/f3dd33e562a328...888911b7a8d.pdf

Further more, the actual article seems much more about a "workshop" in San Fransisco, with no University attached as an accredited source, as in, this is being done for a grade/

http://www.thefire.org/pdfs/3d0208922083e5...e8371ab5f0f.pdf

Every link on the "fire" site only goes to one doctors (from San Fransisco, far as I can tell) and thier policies on assessments- NOTHING about instituting this program.

Only media sources noted to cover it have been tabloids at this point.

Ain't saying it didn't happen- I just can find no REAL information on it happening.

Zack, you have lied to us!
.
Just kidding . It seemed interesting enough, but rang a bit false. Thanks for the debunking, CruisingRam

Try this link http://thefire.org/index.php/article/8555.html or simply call the university and ask directly for a source. I think if you Google University of Delaware race indoctrination policy you will get all the information your heart and mind requires to validate this debate.

I just went through every single link on the fire source. The rest is blogs and tabloid paper reporting. I don't care about what my heart or beliefs are- I care about FACTS. Tell me something that is true maybe?

As the starter of this post- it is not incumbent upon me to make a long distance call from Alaska to Delaware to do YOUR research for ya bud- give us some proof- mm-kay?

IT is up to YOU, as the thread starter, to show that this is actually happening.

A RACIST: 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. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination.

Isn't that what a racist is? They aren't defined by their socio-economic condition.

I skimmed through the documents. I didn't read enough to determine whether residents have to attend this "indoctrination". I assume you have to go through the program if you want to be a member of the Residence staff.

So where exactly does the document say all whites are racist?

CR. Stop being a thread troll. There are a number of links to this article, and of course it has statements that seem to be verifiable.

Why don't you attempt to debunk the sources.... well, probably because you CAN'T!

You say that people are "kooky" for believing this stuff, then post nothing in response? Are there articles that mention that this may not be true?

It has the U of Del's phone numbers on there. Stop living under a bridge. The way this works is someone posts something, and if you disagree... you prove otherwise. It's called a debate. I can't imagine that they would've provided links to people's emails and phone numbers for no reason.

I went to the official UD web site and there I found this link http://index.udel.edu/query.html?qp=&q...radiobutton=web and on this link I selected this link (one of many on race) http://www.udel.edu/PR/UpDate/92/1/21.html and I would conclude that one of the film presentations include the information cited on the basic post. I have attended similar supervisor race programs where a similar position was taken by the black person presenting race relations to elevate debate on what racism is. I hope this helps and I will point out at the bottom of the second link of the race program is a statement that the federal government supports this action. If you want and are truly interested then perhaps you could discuss the topic on one of the University discussion boards to see if my assumption is in fact true.

Your links are solid, Zack, but nowhere on these two do I see anything that remotely resembles your first source. I see a racial awareness program, one, i might add, that is NOT MANDATORY, not a reverse-racism program against whites.

WorldNetDaily, from what i can read, is blowing up the entire event. They seem to have a mild angle toward conservative christianity, which is perfectly all right...until they allow it to subvert their objectivity.

Edit; are they a tabloid? I read these articles, and that's the vibe i'm getting. Articles based partly on fact, but skewed so far to the religious right so as to be unrecognizable from the truth.

Christians have a right, a duty, to spread the word of god. there's no refuting this. But there's also a responsibility there; the necessity for seperating "religious fact" from "fact". And as we all know, the two are rarely the same.

I've looked at Zack's latest links and they tell us nothing.

I'm not going to look any further. I will not do Zack's homework for him and neither should anyone else. The thread should rise or fall on the credibility of the auhor's sources.

At this point WND's story seems unfounded.

The document, if authentic, really calls into question the way that the state of racism is "taught" to the residents at UD.

The way I heard it (yes this was on the radio...) was that this was a course used to teach RA (resident advisors) so that they could encourage diversity. At the end of the training, RAs were supposed to be more diverse and more "anti-racists".

Looking through the document, several statements bug me. Notice the lumping of racism with religion. Notice the history of Europeans, the potshots at Columbus, the lauding of the Moors as the cultural leaders of Europe, the glossing over of the existance of slavery in non-white cultures. It is obvious what is going on here.

Dr. Shakti Butler is not a professor at UD, but is a lecturer on this very subject. She does not, however, list the University of Delaware as among her educational clients. (this list appears to be from 2006).

If this is bogus, someone went through an aweful lot of trouble to make it up.

From UD

And the letter from UD to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education:

here

Seems this is not mandatory. Seems this program is an attempt to start a real dialog.

I'm sorry it itches so many white folks the wrong way. I guess 400 years of slavery and apartheid are water under the bridge now. And God forbid anyone take potshots at someone like Columbus! How dare they! It's not as if he was a slave trader for the Portuguese before 1492, or that he continued to trade slaves from the Carribean to Europe, and from Africa to the Carribean... oh wait, he DID do those things.

There's a brand of conservatives (fortunately shrinking) who troll the waters of race, waiting for yellow rags like WND to throw some chum in. Then they go into a feeding frenzy. Funny, they don't react the same way when Diallo gets shot 41 times by NYC police. To these race sharks, it's all about the battered, poor white dude getting shafted by Shaft. They point and laugh with derision at Jackson and Sharpton, complaining that those two fine brothers are doing the exact thing they do time after time.

This issue is the usual baloney. There's a standard method. First, distort reality as far as you can without actually breaking it. Well, maybe you can break it too. Then, when that initially gets debunked, start in on some minute details from - in this case - the teaching guide of an optional program.

Golly, but they must shudder at the outcome. Imagine, a generation of people who might respect and engender diversity and respect. As Kurtz would say, "the horror!"

WND is a conservative political version of the Weekly World News. Personally, I think we need a member who believes that rag to start some topics on Nostradomas or this week's alien-human hybrid baby.

To me, this looks very American. Reading the document linked by Amlord, I have to conclude that Sharon Martinas who is listed as having come up with the definitions is either an ignorant woman who has no concept of the world beyond America's borders, nor the history of the human race nor has ever read '1984' by George Orwell, or she is simply out to cause trouble.

Perhaps, but the guide in question is apparently real enough. In an American university people are being taught that a racist is 'one who is priviliged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist system'. That this term is being applied to all white people, 'people of European descent'.

If I am judged a racist by virtue of the colour of my skin, then what does my opinion matter? I am a criminal no matter what I say, believe or do.

Its also interesting to note that apparently 'people of colour within the US system cannot be considered racists because they do not have the power to back up their prejudices'.

Really? So beating up another person because he is of a lighter skin colour isn't using power to back up a prejudism?

Having been to university myself and been subjected to this sort of newspeak from aggressive feminists in art history lectures I can't say I'm surprised by it much. Its more or less what I've come to expect and why I eventually found myself pushed further and further to the political right. What I don't understand is why people simply making up new definitions for words to fit a pre conceived personal bias doesn't get critized by those on the left. Its as if left wingers want to be seen as the villains of history, as if they want to take credit for diabolical acts they had no part in. Amazing!

The notion that 'white people' are some how different from other people, is preposterous and ignores the facts.

A racist is some one who believes race accounts for differences in human character and that a particular race is superior to others.

And thats it. I can just agree with what Moif said here. As a none-american, i find this article a tiny bit weird.


I did find the 'higher education in the United States does not have the legal right to engage in a program of systematic thought reform..' quote rather ironic, as the United States School system has a very advanced indoctrination system of making sure the students "love" their nation and are "proud" to be american. But i guess that is another topic, just a bit off the track when they say the complete opposite.




Added: OK this is not a serious site. Its some sort of satire similar to cnn and foxnews that spread false propaganda (if serious) or generally joking (lets hope). I found this one that seem to say that Atheism is something "bad", and that Christianity is "good", and that the United States was "founded on Christianity" etcetera, really odd stuff. But i did notice a strong hostility towards intellectuals when i´ve been in the U.S, and atheist generally being of higher education and intelligent should be seen as something good, right? Apparently we are not "liked" in the general U.S society. Anyway, this site is not to be taken seriously.

I have two problems with this part of your response.

First, The term racism and its predecessor, racialism, were coined as words describing Nazi policies (racism) and British policies (racialism). Privilege was implicitly a part of those words, privilege and power. The real changing of the definition is that over time, it has been more generalized to mean any prejudicial behavior. So no, left wing lunatics aren't inventing definitions willy-nilly.

Second, while I obviously agree with you that it can be dangerous to change the definitions of words to fit a preconceived bias, it certainly isn't only done by the left. Why, take the word "liberal" for example.

I take issue with the strength of the wording of the guide as written. I think it could have been done much better. But hashing over the way this paper is worded is certainly a far cry from the Chicken Little "our kids are being indoctrinated by the heathen Amurica-hatin gay-lovin liberal crazies" viewpoint of the good old WND.

And James, I assure you, WND is a serious site. Obviously they are taken seriously by at least some of the posters in this thread.

Geez, lighten up. You think you're changing the world? Fine. I don't. We're just trying to have some fun and talk about maybe stuff that matters, you know, to us. Maybe you think we can make a difference in your life. Okay, say so. But just blaming others is full of crock pot jizzum.

BTW. the US if full of crazies. That's news?

Like the rest of the world is sane.

No cute icon.

Among the other things that are either false or misrepresented in this thread is this point.
If you mean white by not meaing the snow as in a lower percentage than the national average then you are right.

link

So, tell me Quarkhead, when was the last time any one got dragged off to court and convicted of being a liberal?

As for the etymology of the word racist, I'd like to see any credible source which listed the meaning, original or otherwise, of the word racist as being 'white person' or 'European'. In the absence of any such information, I have to assume that Sharon Martinas and her definition as it is being offered in the educational institution in question, is simply making up a new, subjective and highly biased meaning to a word whose clear meaning is written in any English (or American) dictionary you care to consult.

This WHOLE debate is a strawman. There is no attempt by the university to indoctrinate the students to BELIEVE anything. I've been in criminal justice classes, psyche classes, geopolitical classes. The fact that may have been forced to be introduced to the ideas of Frued by learning them, does not mean i therefore myust take on the belief. No I merely have to know what Freud believed. At most this is as far as we can say the university went.

But look at the questions to debate... I'll answer them any way... and Aevan... CR is right about you, your mouth waters when you see anything showing white men as victims... lol

Does this mandatory indoctrination violate the spirit of our American Constitution?

No indoctrination exists, but if it did it would be wrong

Do you agree that pigmentation of skin can place one in or out of a category of racists? If so why?

No, but it can make one group an automatic beneficiary from racism

Would you support other universities create like programs to indoctrinate white students?

This assumes that there is one that does... theree isn't, you're wrong. Apologize.

Well, FIRE hasn't redacted or issued a correction about requiring an est. 7k students from enrolling in this program. That's a start.

I looked at the PDF again. Shakti Butler works for World Trust. Some of the text is cited from like-minded organizations. Sharon Martinas didn't come up with the definitions, and I don't know why that's stated on the document. I mean, works are cited where appropriate (Websters, "Making Face, Making Soul", etc.), except where noted ("I use 'white supremacy' as a synonym for racism").

This is a confusing document. It wants to be taken seriously as a political piece but it's not nuanced enough for my taste to be a political paper (read: verbose and nuanced) and I hope Martinas is a student and put it together.


I don't understand why this is a big deal. We've posited similar ideas on this very forum; racism is a subtle, institutional problem in the U.S. still affecting blacks today. You can quibble with the presentation but I'm asking myself why can ers bluntly state their ideas but Martinas can't?

I'm more than slightly amused at WorldNetDaily taking issue with this "manifesto". How come WND thinks the university has no right discussing racism however it wants but evangelist Joseph Farah can criticize liberals for wanting to domesticate blacks?

More faux outrage plz.

Lesly.

I get tired of being labelled just as much as any one else does. Why do women complain about sexism? Why do black people complain about racism? Its a big deal because people actually believe this dren is real. Not only that (actually thats not such a big deal) but they teach other people the same thing (which is a big deal).

I had to listen to hours and hours of lectures on the woes inflicted upon women by men in my art history class because my lecturers were all raging feminists with fire in their aging belly's ...with a 'captive audience'. I got marked down constantly because I openly disagreed with a lot of what was being said (and still do). The lesson I learned then is that university is not a place where people go to learn stuff. Its a place where people go to be taught (see the difference?). If I'd said the right thing, nodded and parroted the diatribe on offer, I'd have come away every ones darling. I'm not that person though. I complain and argue and question stuff I disagree with. I don't give a toss about Joseph Farah or this WND (I've never heard of either of them). But I do care about being labelled a racist because of the colour of my skin!

You can call it faux outrage if you wish, but then whats the difference between that and (hypothetically) me shrugging off examples of sexism as 'hysteria'?

As for what passes on well, we're all entertaining I'm sure, but we're hardly an educational institution and no matter what is said here, there are always opposing opinions to temper the bitterness and no one is going to get a c- from Jaime because they held a contrary opinion!



edited for spelling

Dren? You switching on me?


Not to sound flippant, but so what if people share their views and get others to agree with them?


Well good for you for speaking up. I've never personally experienced a bully pulpit in class. I've heard conservatives make anecdotal complaints, but never experienced it.


I could easily pass for a European, in fact part of my genealogy is European in origin, and reading this I don't feel like I'm being labeled a racist.


Moif... you don't get a grade for opting to attend this program and unless you agree with Bob Parks about a conspirational liberal indoctrination in higher education, well, how do you know someone's going to get shouted down?

My faux outrage label is directed at WND's double standards on free speech, not your feelings.

Questions for Debate:

Does this mandatory indoctrination violate the spirit of our American Constitution?

I don’t know. Really I don’t you have so much stuff in society that depending on the individual could be constructed to mean just about anything half the time, its pretty subjective jungle out there.

Do you agree that pigmentation of skin can place one in or out of a category of racists? If so why?

Again, I find this issue relative. For instance lets look at all the hatred Jews have had to endure. The country or the only country I know of where no racism has existed against Jews because they lived there is India. Should a Jewish person still look at them as anti-semantic if they have experienced something they felt was racist by another person of difference? Its the whole problem with race based thought, the very subjective nature of it eludes any real concrete definition yet yields very real results such as mass death and murder, chalk up some points for ignorance.

Would you support other universities create like programs to indoctrinate white students?


Teaching diversity wont ever really be successful at the hand of some extremist looking to subjugate people. I had to join the military and work crappy jobs while going to school to make it out of poverty, on top of that I was born white. I dont know how much of a benefit it has giving me as I see people that are do not have white skin doing better in life then I. Plus I have never engaged in racist behavior. I don’t like everything in the world that people can do. I find the image portrayed in rap with the whole club scene utterly retarded, and yes I used that word because this is still a free country. Subjugation and harsh words only really end up making enemies not friends. Understanding, objective understanding is about the only chance you have of changing a persons mind on something I think. There are still people in the world that don’t think we landed on the moon and people that believe the earth is flat and people that think the earth is only 2,000 years old. Why do I have to agree with such notions, if not am I being a racist of some type.

Lesly

Switching?

Tis a Farscape term.


Well, nothing really, until suddenly it becomes an acceptable meme to start calling me and people who look like me a racist, just because they look like me!


I have. In two seperate institutions and from many different tutors. Had i been confined to one or two, I would have accepted it as just the way things are. When I had tutors dictating illustration to me from a feminist perspective, I began to note a pattern. On Tuesdays we were taught life drawing from a female nude, on Wednesday we were taught art degrades women by focusing on its their bodies. On Thursdays I'd have a tutor telling me I couldn't paint a black sabbath with naked witches in it because that was degrading to women. There was a lot of stuff like this and more besides. The black sabbath example always stands out for me because the tutor really lost it. Accused me of being the sort of sexist that she'd spent 30 years fighting against. I told her I was studying illustration and thus, the client would decide not I. That argument went down like a lead balloon.

So, my integrity is intact but my grades took a beating... Good job no one gives a toss about my grades!


No doubt I'm projecting my own experiences and annoyances onto this topic (I do that) but I get very touchy when people start calling me a racist because I am 'white'. Maybe it cuts close to the bone or maybe I'm just sick of it, I don't know. I have xenophobic, sexist and immoral tendencies like all other human beings but I try very hard to be as fair minded as possible.


My feelings are not bruised by your post (or any one elses), rest assured

Does this mandatory indoctrination violate the spirit of our American Constitution?

Whoa Zack, you conclude too much too soon! As others have posted, this does not seem to be a mandatory program. Once that has been or not been established then we can move onto whether there is a Constitutional violation of some kind.

Do you agree that pigmentation of skin can place one in or out of a category of racists? If so why?

I skimmed the article by Butler. It was disconcerting to say the least. At this point, I do not accept his definitions of racism. Though an interesting take on this "power plus prejudice" view, in one fell swoop he seeks to exonerate all minorities (i.e., non-whites) with this new and improved definition. Wow, I can have the "you-know-what" beaten out of me by a different ethnic group and it won't be termed racist because they didn't have the "power"?! Am I missing something?

Look, racism is made all the more egregious when it is backed by power - a power that can express itself on many different levels. The institutionalized racism against blacks for centuries in this country is a textbook case. To suggest that blacks or any other minority cannot be racist because they haven't access to "the institution" though is IMO - bullpucky. Power comes into play at many different levels and not just politically/institutionally. I remember substituting at an elementary school down in San Ysidro (California border town with Tijuana) on one particular day and watching massive hords of Latino children chasing and taunting the one lone red-headed white child in the school during recess without repercussion. If that's not power then I don't speak English.

Would you support other universities create like programs to indoctrinate white students?

Zack, again be careful. The indoctrination you seem to be suggesting requires coersion and I don't see it. That being said, I am uncomfortable with what I fear is a "soft" agenda on the part of the residence leaders. Are these leaders remaining impartial when considering those who have expressed interest in the program with those who resist it? You know, a kind of "hey, this is the new cutting edge thing to consider. Who wouldn't want to?" Gee, I don't know I guess only white, conservative dim bulbs! Hmmmm, I wonder. In fact, if you read further into the links you'll find the letter drafted by someone high up in the university administration admitting that there have been some abuses. This administrator has agreed to look further into these allegations. Hopefully, FIRE's allegations have prompted a more thorough vetting of how this program is unfolding.

The entire premise of the the thread is predicated on a LIE- i.e.- this class is mandatory- do you deny that this is an outright lie?

A thread started on a lie makes everything built on the lie- continue to be a lie.

It has been debunked that this is mandatory- this part has been proven. It is up to the original poster to post accurate data for his opening thread.

It wasn't accurate- IT WAS AN OUTRIGHT LIE.

Funny- a conservative won't read a real life science article that is posted in a science journal, usually attacks the source ad so on- but will by any of this bunk that comes into thier inbox through right wing bloggers.

And conservatives get mad when "egg headed liberals" seem to always look down thier noses at right wingers as "stupid"

guess there is one stereotype that continues to be accurate

Can't believe in "global warming" - despite overwhelming evidence. But will believe anything a right winger tells you, if it fits somewhere in your belief system.

The links lied- get over it.

The program was NEVER mandatory.

My original post and the questions asked were based on the link I provided. Regardless if the reference is valid or not I think the debate is still valid.

It is my understanding the UD public relations made a press release yesterday indicating the training was not mandatory. Highly encouraged attendance or mandatory has little to do with the debate or the resulting discussion in a number of sources resultant of the training sponsored by the university.

My personal position is such training is productive if it develops a two way conversation on race. The more we know and understand about other races and cultures removes ignorance. Likewise, the more minorities learn about how majorities make their position in these two way discussions removes assumptions they may hold.

So the answer to question 1 is no, it is a learning experience if it is a two way conversation.

The very statement in question two is a great debate starter for race debate and puts all parties into the issue to state points of view. Again a very good learning situation.

Question three. The more we know about each other the better we all are as a culture so yes I would encourage such programs at all level of education.

CR, your posts are neither articulate nor accurate. I wouldn't ever be so bold (or ignorant) as to call names on here. You neither know my education nor my position in life, so being judgemental is absurd.



QH- remember, the shots fired at the man began with another black man. Funny isn't it? Talk about straw man arguments.

The thing about this thread, was that at the time the thread began, there were no conflicting stories. That was my point to Crusing Ram.

It's not about "being held down", but for raging and blinded liberals, there is automatically an issue with racism. It's abhorrid and unbelievable to liberals that most people don't even consider race in their lives (excepting this board).

This very thread is a great example.

Remember when I said....


The truth is that all someone had to do was post "Hey- this document here shows it's not mandatory". Simple enough, right?

Nope. Some people who are sitting in their trailers and/or 1 bedroom apartments in sweat pants eating Cheetos at 3pm on Tuesday have the gall to intentionally call certain demographics in America things like "ignorant". Isn't it funny that the overwhelming majority of extremely successful business people in America would fit your "ignorant" demographic, CR?

Frankly, the facts are that the country is run economically, at least, by conservatives. While there are ignorant liberals and conservatives alike, it's near-sighted and foolish to call anyone that on this board.

From your link:


DID ANYONE READ THAT???

Seriously. Come on.



So... umm... if I am a college Freshman, and I'm told that this is mandatory, and it goes against what I think/feel, how is it not an attempt at indocrination?

I'm going to step out on a limb here. Cruising Ram, make an attempt to at least read the articles presented. I stand firm in my assertion that as of late your arguments are "troll-esque".

You presented not one fact in your finger pointing at me. It's childish at best. It's obvious from the response from the University of Del that there were at least SOME students that were forced into this class.

Whether you agree with it or not, ideas of this nature are extremely controversial. It, yet again, proves that the liberal ideology of our higher education in America is overwhelming.

Kids that go to college are often malleable. It's unfair to impose upon a 17 or 18 year old kid ideas that don't have counter points and/or views that are widely accepted fact.

Are you two insisting that in spite of the university's response, that attendance isn't mandatory, the program is mandatory?

Yes I read FIRE's blog entries, Aevans. FIRE is freaking out linking online documents and focusing on words like "will" and "must" and ignoring statements like "Delivery relies on voluntary attendance". They post emails from Masha and Lindsey reminding people that residence assistants must attend meetings, but you have to volunteer to be an RA. They post an email from Marianna asking non-RAs to notify their RAs if they can't make the meeting, but FIRE assumes the email recipients didn't sign up for a meeting to begin with.

This is like the 80s Satanism/crime conspiracy, but instead of criminals FIRE is projecting and promoting an unfounded, scary narrative on the University of Delaware to increase their authority on First Amendment rights filtered through their political lense (and perhaps pad their coffers with donations in the process).

No ma'am, the document from the University of Delaware states that some people were told that it was mandatory. Apparently some folks thought it was.

From their response to FIRE:


I'm just saying that it's pretty silly, and borderline communist for those that were told they had to go.

Speaking for myself only I wouldn't be concerned at all if it were mandatory as long as the discussion is a two way discussion. There is hardly anything that could stir opinions from both sides as having a person to class entire groups as racist. Doing so promotes discussion and if it is a two way discussion no one attending the training comes out any dumber. Why fear someone making a statement that all whites are racist and black and people of color are not racist? If it were presented in a manner where students couldn't join in then it would be a racist indoctrination. If it is a two way process of venting of "what abouts..." from both sides people leave with more understanding than when they entered to program. No one in an education situation can enter a room and state the sky is red when all students know they see a blue sky. To simply state nonsensical statements without debate wouldn't be tolerated by either group in my opinion.

Aevens- read the questions " is this MANDATORY INDOCTRINATION"

IS THE FIRST QUESTION-

that would be a straight up lie- it was never mandatory- so therefore- not against the constitution or anything else- either take the class or don't, who cares, and, oh yeah, it doesn't count for grade OR on your degree IF YOU DO CHOOSE to go to this whatever.

No matter how you spin it- it is again the gullible right wingers that have taken his BLOG as gospel. Imagine that- right wingers once again buying some lies, hook line and sinker, and again, are deflected from REAL issues, like REAL constitutional outrages, like spying on citizens and the like.

The only troll here is the starter of this thread, that started a thread with STILL NO corraborating evidence for a BLOG.

The problem with trying to take conservative thought in University- i that there IS NO original, or worthwhile, social conservative thought hat is worthwhile pursuing on campus- outside of fiscal conservative economic models, which are pretty good- there isn't really anything to learn from conservatives, there isn't anything to bring on a college campus.

Poeple have asked on this board "why are there so few conservatives on campus"- outside a math lab= seriously- what do they have to offer? A belief system that black poeple are inferior to white poeple, and that if you don't believe in the bible you are going to hell, and that Rush Limbaugh is a prophet of gawd?

Campuses are THE place where you explore new ideas, and new way of coming up with new ideas- there really is no place for conservative thought- by it's very nature, it is anti-intellectual, and you don't really have a genius come from conservative thought, unless perhaps you count engineering, but the very fact that NEW thought takes stepping out your belief system, something that is pretty much anti-conservative in behavior.

CR, one more time. Please use a fact. One. Link something other than your subjective opinion.

In reference to conservatives and racism, there have been threads about that and no one can prove that there is any correlation. No studies have any conclusive proof, etc. Open another thread if you'd like to debate it, but note that no one could prove anything conclusively before.

Furthermore, I would suggest that you don't call conservatives ignorant or boorish in posts that include spelling errors.

"people" is spelled this way sir.

Finally, I've posted twice that the link from the school's reply implicitly stated that some students were lead to believe that it is mandatory. It isn't exactly a history lesson or physics to tell a student that all white people are racists.



This has to be the most bigoted post in AD history, and furthermore has more typos. I find it interesting that you explain ignorance with a post riddled with inaccuracy.

Frankly, the notion that there aren't many conservatives on this board probably has something to do with the fact that many conservatives are working right now. I personally kill time while on conference calls or in between meetings, etc. Hence... my gaps in posting. Where was I on Friday and Monday? Oh - not here... I had a meeting in New Orleans. Get it?

Conservative thought does have flaws, but no more or less than liberal ideology. The notion that one is more or less intellectual, in my opinion, is favored by those who believe that they have to capture superiority in some form or fashion. I call it the "INTERNET BAD-A_ _" mentality. Calling names, insinuating superior ability or thought, etc. It reminds me of a little dog barking in a window really.

In the case of U of Del, I'd have to presume that there are conservatives who go there, and even liberals who don't buy this bologna. As I've proven (remember... Facts CR... facts), the University admitted to forcing some kids to go...

I do find it interesting that the debate hinges upon the idea that it wasn't "mandatory". CR, debates morph and change. Don't hang on to that little bit if you hope to find this debate fulfilling. We've already established that SOME kids had to go.

Either way, I find it interesting that they even have a program that insinuates such outlandish ideology.

Think of it this way... (I DON'T think this, but for argument's sake), what if LSU had a class that was called "Why Black people can't stay out of prison and why they have their kids out of wedlock and are most likely to be on government assistance".

What would people think? Seriously. It's roughly the same bigoted ideology. I have no idea why anyone would support this other than to argue conservative thought.

Typical liberal left think garbage from a liberal University (as most are).

How about blacks or other races – does anyone doubt that racism is not a one way street.

To say “all” implies these dopes have some kind of psychic view of all white students that certainly does not exist.

In case anyone missed it, FIRE has responded to the University's response. It's essentially a "fisking."

Link Here.

And the full dorm curriculum is still posted here, if anyone wants to read it. There is a whole lot of using the word "will" in there, and not a lot of the word "optional" from my perusal. Note that the "optional" materials are hanging on all the walls and the doors, so it would be pretty hard not to see the "optional" learning material if you lived there.

Here are some of the quotes from the student manuals.


I'm not worried specifically about the racial aspect, but the overall message and how it is taught. The whole tone of this is creepy to me, like some sort of brainwashing. Carlito, you will take action toward creating a sustainable world...BWAHAHAHAH. The voices!

ugh. Another example from the FIRE response. After finding that the patriarchy was entrenched and not succumbing to their brainwashing curriculum at the required rate, one dorm hired "strong male RA's" for the male floors, in order to encourage their males to reject their "concepts of traditional male identity." That is Orwellian. RA's are supposed to show you how to hide your beer, not "combat your concepts of male identity."


edit - Hmm, the U seems to have deleted the training manual.

Does this mandatory indoctrination violate the spirit of our American Constitution?
I honestly do not understand how this debate has went to such extremes. Should a university require/recommend attendance of all students to attend race awareness courses that includes indoctrination classes would not violate the spirit of the Constitution if the views of staff and all students take part in an open discussion of topics discussed.

Do you agree that pigmentation of skin can place one in or out of a category of racists? If so why?No because that is simply stupid, yet it is a good topic to encourage a healthy debate between students and I would encourage such leading discussions to start debate.

Would you support other universities create like programs to indoctrinate white students? Yes, as long as there is an open dialog between the staff and students that would identify and apply reason to why people think the way they think.

It seems the word "indoctrination" is the hateful word. Race training exposure presented in a fair and open debate isn't actually indoctrination, it is education. From many Google sources the word "indoctrination" is used because of the university sponsorship of the events. If the events are fairly presented with student involvement and ability to challenge the presenting staff then it doesn't qualify to be labeled indoctrination.

Personally its hard for in many ways not to see various facets of conservative thought as overtly ignorant. For instance the environment. Basic education in natural sciences will let you understand why the environment is utterly something we should safeguard, I am talking first year college. Its not liberal thought either, its physics, biology and chemistry. Yet the right would have it completely backwards. Its like a man running happily holding a magnum to his forehead.

Second. International relations. Again, education far exceeds the rather shallow stance often muttered by the right. I don’t find the left much better but at least they have people calling a foul where it should be. I don’t ever see this in the right, why is this?

Race relations by the right is hardly handled at all. Basic physics and the fact history has an impact on the future, did we escape this reality as part of nature and when. What would the world look like if Nazi Germany never existed, would nukes even be an issue? No thought ever like this seems to come from the right, at least the left has a crude and somewhat barbaric line of thought going on the issue. Overall the left seems to be open to new ideology and at least has that going, which giving the idea that humanity is far from perfect when it comes to objective empirical understanding I find as a possible saving grace, I don’t see this on the right.

yet for the most part its almost impossible to talk about such. It usually evolves into some mudslinging contest with foul language really, thus absolutely no progress. In which I blame both for such, so what is the lesser of two evils to me, the left currently for the issues I posted above. Far from perfect but when forced to make a decision such as vote at least I am trying to do it from an individual standpoint.

I read through all 32 pages of one of Fire's document- not one thing in that document had ANYTHING to do with "all whites are racist" claim Fire made or was made as part of this thread-

the entire premise is founded on a false hood.

Look at the bibliography of the document that Fire provides here.

http://www.thefire.org/pdfs/242b99f5a709bb...4668eab8fab.pdf

Not one subject in that biblography has anything to do with what is posted here, or what Fire claims.

this is obviously a part of campus doveted to out of the box thinking regarding serving the community- just look at the bibilography of what they are quoting:

"where powerful partnerships begin- About campus."

What we are seeng here is an attempt, is for poeple that have plans on doing public service type work,private or public, to understand thier target, um, customer if you will- if you are going into social work, it may be helpful for you to attend a workshop on the homeless, don't ya think?

Once again- the entire premise that this program forces students to acknowledge that all white's are racist is a complete fabrication.

Definition of conservative- when it comes to actual "thinking conservatively"-
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/conservative


Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.

College is not the place for conservative thought- like I said.

I posted plenty of facts- like the fact that none of anything that Fire or the bloggers have posted really are doing anything like what Fire posted.

Of course- it is funny to me, and why conservatives DO get laughed at as far as being considered ignorant and hypocritical is how EASILY- you bought this whole entire cook up of some issue here, and you believed EVERYTHING fire has posted- without ANY corraborating evidence-

but unless you have a conviction in hand for a right wing figure- there isn't "enough proof"- and even when there is a conviction, the poor guy "was railroaded"- such as scooter libby.

This is one of those typical types of things- like the right wing blogger theory that Clinton has killed over 1000 poeple, and that Ron Brown was killed by Hillary- yet, there is NO amount of evidence or fact that you will accept as different than your confirmed belief structure.

And that is why conservative thought- by defiition, really doesn't do well in a learnin and experimentation enviroment- which, by it's very nature- forces you, for a moment, to suspend your belief system in order to explore if there is a better or different way of thinking or acting, that may go 180* away from everything you have learned from your culture- and perhaps, at the same time, really destory some part of "conventional" thinking.

Look at the way some religious types condemn homosexuality as "un-natural"- when, there are numerous studies and evidence of animal relationships that are strictly homosexual, and it is natural.

In fact, when these homosexual relationships were found among animals, there was some feel for need for self censorship, because the observers were afraid of what would happen to thier careers if they mentioned it.

So, after looking at all the PDFs- it is obvious that:

1) No one is being forced to attend these programs.

2) These are learning studies- it appears, without any further documentation, that it is through "immersion"- a well known and accepted method of learning.

3) These students don't just move into these halls for the mere purpose of housing- it is a learning program of and in itself.

4) There is nothing here that even comes CLOSE to what the original poster has charged- not one thing.



This is one of those boogeyman issues where white poeple with with guilt over thier obviously racist political leanings have to stretch WAY beyond what is reality to feel some kind of self satisfaction that they,by proxy, are the victims of some unspecified "reverse racism".

Edited to add: how do you cut and paste from a PDF document?

The juxtaposition of this post and signature creates one of the most unintentionally ironic posts I've seen here. It works whether you agree or disagree, just as a bonus.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge --Darwin

I realize that it is veering off-topic, but there are other ways to look at the topics you cited, and the conservative or libertarian point-of-view could hardly be called "ignorant." I won't bog us down with them here, other than to say many on the right feel similarly yet opposite.

CW- there is some "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" in learning at times, and sometimes the traditional approach is what is best- but that happens rarely in the higher learning culture (culture being the only way term I can think of to emcompass all of higher learning, that is not strictly vocational in nature)

99% of conservative political thinking that is prevalent in the US today is anti-science, anti-evidence based- Gordo touched on that

take global warming- remember when the conservative right was harping that the "jury was out, junk science"- now they are okay with the global warming evidence, but claim that it is man made is again, "junk science"

Abstinence programs have been proven conclusively to NOT work- but it doesn't stop conservatives from advocating it.

But,

only the third question, though it does touch somewhat on the subject of learning, can really be addressed, since there is OBVIOUSLY no "reverse discrimination" going on here.

ON the third question- it is hardly indoctrination if the students are volunteering to enter this program, and, paying good money for it.

Clearly- if they don't like the curriculum, they are probably in the wrong major, don't ya think?

An engineering hall may have robot wars, and have to be in the same living situation, that they probably competed to even get in this "hall"- that had some special focus on some form of learning that they CHOSE as part of this curriculum.

Even still- no where in this entire debate is there any reality of "reverse racism".

All Whites are Racist University leaders claim - title of the thread- a straight up lie- who are these "university leaders" that claimed this? Was it the Chancellor? The Dean of Colleges? You have a quote on this "leader?

That would be lie number one

Lied Number two is in the first question:

Does this mandatory indoctrination violate the spirit of our American Constitution?

There is no mandatory indoctrination- blog site and thread poster lie #2

Do you agree that pigmentation of skin can place one in or out of a category of racists? If so why?

Okay- the second question, though really only related through by a paper here or there by some student or faculty, really has nothing to do wth "mandatory indoctrination" or U of D as a "liberal" learning institution

No, I have always thought that it was as murky as definitions themselves of race "white"- um, what is white EXACTLY- are you implying a certain northern european race, or, is what jews? what about white hispanics?

So, unless some very specific parameters are set- it is pretty hard to make some real definitions and claims.

Question Number 3:

Would you support other universities create like programs to indoctrinate white students?



Yet another lie- "support other universities to indoctrinate white students"- there are really slimy indoctrination centers for white poeple- but they are usually racist places like Bob Jones that didn't allow inter-racial marriage until the goverment forced themto stop it.

Since U of D is indoctrinating no one on what you claim- you would be best to find a university that DOES do what you are claiming, instead of repeating Fire's LIES.

What would those issues be by chance that makes the left look ignorant, if you can sum such up of course without calling it Clintons fault I think such could be a means to a healthy debate and positive thinking about contemporary issues such as abortion. The other route or current means of such communication is akin to arson really of anything civil. So if I may maybe ignorant is not the best term, what should it be, choosing to ignore, or think invalid of many things such as evolution or global warming, to the reality that slavery and history might have more of a reality as far as impact goes on today’s America? Lastly how could energy independence ever be a bad thing in light of the world today. I see Hillary boasting a lot about environmental issues and talking sensibly about such. Being a politician I know she never has to hold up to anything that she says because in reality politicians are all liars

She the issue of GW and energy having me vote for Hillary mean I support republicans. be it far from me I don’t support the catholic church and boyloveing or rape or much anything else about it. Did Colbert not allude to being catholic on his show, must be some inside joke if true. IN short I don’t support democrats or republicans, I support issues. The reality of politics has caused such to derive a depraved situation in regards to communicating anything. I mean our current president listens to himself and Cheney I think, and that’s about it.

So what does it mean for democracy, well, nothing positive I would think. No communication past fights anymore. Maybe its stress from today’s world, maybe its the future we gave to ourselves from previous behavior, either way it sucks and is truly ignorant if anything is giving what could be.

Good Job Gordo. I only posted this part of your post, as a "tipping my hat" to the only intelligent and factual thing you've said.

What did your post have to do with this thread again?

I'll try to tie the two ideas so as to not elude to the ignorance of ideas that include "conservatives are running with guns to their heads" (*paraphrased*).

Conservative Ideology doesn't devulge itself from the environment, but rather doesn't necessarily agree that the science (or lack there of) is legitimate or the means to improvement homogeneous. For instance, do we know for a fact that car emissions produce global warming? No. Of course not. Do we know that the globe isn't just in a cycle of warming? Nope. Do we think that using ethanol to drive cars, even though the energy that it takes to make it is 2x as consuming and the energy comes from fossil fuels? No. Many of us believe in Nuclear energy, but some kooks think their kids would play in the stream and glow. Many of us believe in wind power, and other practical solutions. I'm a small part owner in a family property in Minden, LA and we have solar panels. Every single one of us is conservative (I dunno about republican these days...who knows what that is in 2008).

Conversely, do I believe that islands in the S Pacific are sinking because the glaciers are melting and it's the fault of my microwave (or insert other absurd reference)? No. The verdict's out.

Liberals and conservatives alike believe that their ideas are tantamount, while the difference in rhetoric on this board seems to be geared towards ranting liberals believing that their ideology is superior intellectually.

International relations are poor on the right? Come on. I have to seriously draw the line and try not to laugh at you. Do you have any idea where the notion of federal aid comes from/came from?
Seriously. The money we ship overseas is absurd, and most of it comes from Democrats.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/world/af...alth.html?fta=y

We've been shipping money and troops overseas to every corner of the globe and people still hate us. They hated us during the Clinton Admin, during Bush jr and sr, and during the Reagan administration. If you think otherwise, you need to travel somewhere and get a clue as to how it really works. People like American money, but when that runs dry... they hate that their kids listen to Eminem and they wear levis. It's the way of the world.

You don't see anything on the "right" as practical or intelligent BECAUSE you're uber liberal. That's ok. The problem I have is that people like you TRULY BELIEVE that conservatives are ignorant, even though ostensibly conservative thought built the wealthiest economic structure ever in the history of the world. I don't mind that you don't agree, but rather find fault in the notion that you're so arrogant that you believe that your thoughts are BETTER all the time.

This is EXACTLY why there is a problem with the "racist" program at U of Del. The University believes that this garbage constitutes "HIGHER" learning. Maybe a lecture series, maybe an optional speaker program, etc would be good. The problem that anyone has is that there are people who truly believe that all college freshman SHOULD (as evidenced in that some were forced to go) go to this "class" (which ironically was called a "treatment"... as if