College Students Told To Disavow Their 'American-ness, Maleness, Whiteness'

[AuH20]

If it wasn't so absurd, I would be laughing.

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/12062

[paulbot24]

I want you to write as if you are a crystal turtle from the Andromeda galaxy and you are speaking to the rainbow which is the the "collective" universe.... Soon you'll have to be stoned to pass the writing assignments. Good for him for dropping that garbage class.

[AFPVet]

The syllabus of the class, called Political Science 201: Research and Analysis, goes on to ask students “to write and speak in a way that does not assume American-ness, maleness, whiteness, heterosexuality, middle-class status, etc. to be the norm.” It is taught by a black, female professor.

Um... this is where I don't understand Butler University. Writing professionally has nothing to do with socioeconomic, gender, cultural, or race status. Why does she bring it up? A gender neutral pronoun? Come on... if you don't want to say he or she, use the person's name.

[Rothbardian Girl]

The syllabus of the class, called Political Science 201: Research and Analysis, goes on to ask students “to write and speak in a way that does not assume American-ness, maleness, whiteness, heterosexuality, middle-class status, etc. to be the norm.”

This is a common activity in classes like this; all she is really asking the class to do in this syllabus is to apply the sociological imagination to their own lives. It is pretty generally accepted that people from different walks of life (ethnically, culturally, income levels, etc.) will see the world differently (which is what "applying the sociological imagination" refers to).

Perhaps some people may try to argue that she was implicitly assuming only white, American, suburban, etc. males could be biased in some way, but those who do so might want to try checking their reading comprehension. The items in the syllabus are set off by commas, which honestly implies to anyone familiar with the English language that those are separate categories and not meant to illustrate a specific kind of person.

[juleswin]

This is a common activity in classes like this; all she is really asking the class to do in this syllabus is to apply the sociological imagination to their own lives. It is pretty generally accepted that people from different walks of life (ethnically, culturally, income levels, etc.) will see the world differently (which is what "applying the sociological imagination" refers to).

Perhaps some people may try to argue that she was implicitly assuming only white, American, suburban, etc. males could be biased in some way, but those who do so might want to try checking their reading comprehension. The items in the syllabus are set off by commas, which honestly implies to anyone familiar with the English language that those are separate categories and not meant to illustrate a specific kind of person.\


What he said. I would understand the outrage if she had told them to disavow their identities forever.

[paulbot24]

Um... this is where I don't understand Butler University. Writing professionally has nothing to do with socioeconomic, gender, cultural, or race status. Why does she bring it up? A gender neutral pronoun? Come on... if you don't want to say he or she, use the person's name. Why bring it up indeed. It is similar to going around to people and asking them if they have ever felt discriminated against. People will all of a sudden "realize" they are angry about some past event. If they can't think of something then, they'll even come up to you later and say they thought of something, as if it is NOT POSSIBLE that it has never happened to them. My dad would call this stirring the pot. What really is the point?

[PaulConventionWV]

If it wasn't so absurd, I would be laughing.

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/12062

They think he and she are not inclusive words. That suggests that simply recognizing the fact that such realities as sex actually exist is prejudiced in some way. It's really, really sad what these people have done to bastardize and distort social realities that have been there for thousands of years until some people decided reality wasn't gender-neutral enough or inclusive of other cultures. If I see a black man and the fact that he is black is relevant, I'm going to say he's black. If I see a woman and I think she's attractive, you're goddamn right I'm going to speak from my own perspective and act like she's an attractive woman. If I call you a woman and you're actually a man on the inside, feel free to express that, but don't denigrate me for looking at you as what nature and reality would dictate that you are, regardless of what you FEEL like.

Also, I think it's patently absurd that a lesbian can claim to be masculine, since they don't even know what it's like to be a man in the first place. It's just pure insanity.

[PaulConventionWV]

I want you to write as if you are a crystal turtle from the Andromeda galaxy and you are speaking to the rainbow which is the the "collective" universe.... Soon you'll have to be stoned to pass the writing assignments. Good for him for dropping that garbage class.

No, that would be prejudiced. Just make sure you're not writing as if you're NOT a crystal turtle from the Andromeda galaxy and you are speaking to the rainbow which is the collective universe because that would totally be non-inclusive.

[PaulConventionWV]

Um... this is where I don't understand Butler University. Writing professionally has nothing to do with socioeconomic, gender, cultural, or race status. Why does she bring it up? A gender neutral pronoun? Come on... if you don't want to say he or she, use the person's name.

Just make sure the name is gender-neutral. If it's not, use a gender-neutral version of it.

[paulbot24]

If I call you a woman and you're actually a man on the inside, feel free to express that, but don't denigrate me for looking at you as what nature and reality would dictate that you are, regardless of what you FEEL like.

That is a great statement. Not much worse than knowing that you are not racist or sexist, or whatever, and being accused of it because somebody didn't FEEL like you said something correctly. I am difficult to offend, but it offends me greatly when somebody is quick to accuse me of being judgemental or worse, racist, because I noted that the person was Black or tattooed or purple-haired or something that is clear to any observer and only said to help distinguish or describe.

[rprprs]

From the comments - A question that needed to be asked, and a conclusion I don't doubt:

Are there non-white, non-hetero, non-males in the class? If so, then I would hope the professor is being intellectually honest and defining the same boundaries for the black, gay, and female class members. But, my suspicions (and familiarity with such elitist, liberal higher-ed agendas) tell me that a paper or presentation that clearly reflected a black, gay, or female viewpoint would be acceptable.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

This is a common activity in classes like this; all she is really asking the class to do in this syllabus is to apply the sociological imagination to their own lives. It is pretty generally accepted that people from different walks of life (ethnically, culturally, income levels, etc.) will see the world differently (which is what "applying the sociological imagination" refers to).

Perhaps some people may try to argue that she was implicitly assuming only white, American, suburban, etc. males could be biased in some way, but those who do so might want to try checking their reading comprehension. The items in the syllabus are set off by commas, which honestly implies to anyone familiar with the English language that those are separate categories and not meant to illustrate a specific kind of person.

I agree. It's basically Sociology 101.

[mad cow]

From the article:" I think paying $40,000 a year should give me that basic right."

$160,000 of non-dischargable debt gets you a BA from Butler.I guess as long as i'm not paying for it,I have no right to complain,as long as i'm not paying for it...

[BamaAla]

I agree. It's basically Sociology 101.

I was going to say Cultural Anthropology 101, but even the anthropologists realize ethnocentrism is a reality and accept it as so. I guess I could see this in a anthro or sociology class, but it seems a little absurd in a 200 level psc class that is titled to lead me to believe it is a research methods class.

[Cody1]

Um... this is where I don't understand Butler University. Writing professionally has nothing to do with socioeconomic, gender, cultural, or race status. Why does she bring it up? A gender neutral pronoun? Come on... if you don't want to say he or she, use the person's name.

This crap is everywhere!

I'm attending South University for a bachelors in healthcare management. The further into my degree I get the more left wing the classes become. I'm in the middle of a Public Health course that has a few sections on individualism, libertarianis, and the "right" of the federal government to write blatantly unconstitutional laws for the "general welfare" of the population. Sometimes I wonder why i'm even in college, many of my classmates are so indoctrinated to the hive mind collectivist, democratic-social-consensus way of thinking it makes me sick, and they're not even good at it! LOL! You would think that University juniors and seniors would have developed a greater understanding of this ideology even though it's horribly flawed but many of these individuals reconcile and compose on a high school level!

I wonder how many of us would be in Universities if the curriculum were as difficult as it was a hundred years ago. What ever happened to universities actually showing students the way to becoming true intellectual leaders of humanity?

[Cody1]

I was going to say Cultural Anthropology 101, but even the anthropologists realize ethnocentrism is a reality and accept it as so. I guess I could see this in a anthro or sociology class, but it seems a little absurd in a 200 level psc class that is titled to lead me to believe it is a research methods class.

You'd be surprised (or maybe not) at the amount of garbage that makes its way into the 200 level class curriculum. Math and Science not so much, but liberal arts?! I've taken two 200 level English courses in my career and both were (at least I think they were) on a high school level of difficulty as far as comprehension and critical thinking.

[RockEnds]

I majored in political science. My minors are sociology and history. We didn't do this kind of thing. Of course, that was a few years back, but still. In my poli sci classes, we frequently verbally abused one another at a heightened pitch. In sociology class, we organized a protest that was successful enough the professor was fired and the dean resigned. But didn't do this. Hmm.

[youngbuck]

I disavow my American-ness, I disavow my maleness, I disavow my whiteness, I disavow life and die.

[BamaAla]

I disavow my American-ness, I disavow my maleness, I disavow my whiteness, I disavow life and die.

Makes me think of the Descartes joke...I think not...and disappear.

[Meatwasp]

As my husband used to say, :Another crop of college trained minds is born". He was a college guy too but saw through the sh--.

[pochy1776]

When can white people gain their balls back again.

[Matt Collins]

To be honest, there are a lot of times I'd like to disavow my government.

[AFPVet]

You'd be surprised (or maybe not) at the amount of garbage that makes its way into the 200 level class curriculum. Math and Science not so much, but liberal arts?! I've taken two 200 level English courses in my career and both were (at least I think they were) on a high school level of difficulty as far as comprehension and critical thinking.

There are a few 'refresher' courses, but interestingly enough, I've had lower level courses that were taught the same way as the 300-400 levels due to the fact that the professors liked to teach their lower level classes the same way as their upper levels. As I have always said to people getting ready for college, you take the professor... not the course!

[AGRP]

Become the british version of rupaul?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3RB_56WziA&feature=youtube_gdata

[osan]

“Our language doesn’t make it easy to write in ways that are inclusive,” Howard said. “We don’t have a generic singular, I mean we have he and she. There is no pronoun that is gender-neutral there.”

Proving that you need have no brains worth the mention to be dean of a university. What an ignorant fop. And I bet he does not have the sense to be so ashamed of this ignorance that, at the very best, a paper bag over his head is demanded.

Everything he asserts in that sentence is WRONG. Dead wrong. There is, in fact, a "generic singular" third person pronoun in English. It is called "he". Furthermore, it IS gender-neutral because neither nouns nor pronouns in the English language possess the characteristic of gender. Further still, this moron is using "gender" to denote "sex". Human beings do not possess the characteristic of "gender". Only nouns do, and as we see above, English dispensed with that centuries ago, if ever it even had it... which I am embarrassed to say I do not know. Humans have the characteristic of "sex" - male, female, or surgically altered.

What an idiot.

[heavenlyboy34]

They think he and she are not inclusive words. That suggests that simply recognizing the fact that such realities as sex actually exist is prejudiced in some way. It's really, really sad what these people have done to bastardize and distort social realities that have been there for thousands of years until some people decided reality wasn't gender-neutral enough or inclusive of other cultures. If I see a black man and the fact that he is black is relevant, I'm going to say he's black. If I see a woman and I think she's attractive, you're goddamn right I'm going to speak from my own perspective and act like she's an attractive woman. If I call you a woman and you're actually a man on the inside, feel free to express that, but don't denigrate me for looking at you as what nature and reality would dictate that you are, regardless of what you FEEL like.

Also, I think it's patently absurd that a lesbian can claim to be masculine, since they don't even know what it's like to be a man in the first place. It's just pure insanity.
It is my understanding that bull-dikes refer to themselves because they adopt what they consider to be the "masculine" role in a relationship (the "male energy" as some Eastern philosophers call it). Correct me if I'm mistaken, though.

[VIDEODROME]

The danger of being this open minded is your brain may fall out.

[heavenlyboy34]

You'd be surprised (or maybe not) at the amount of garbage that makes its way into the 200 level class curriculum. Math and Science not so much, but liberal arts?! I've taken two 200 level English courses in my career and both were (at least I think they were) on a high school level of difficulty as far as comprehension and critical thinking.
That was my experience in college as well. Fortunately, my core cirriculum required none of that shit. Avoid most liberal arts programs unless you absolutely can't.

[Anti Federalist]

I disavow my American-ness, I disavow my maleness, I disavow my whiteness, I disavow life and die.


Makes me think of the Descartes joke...I think not...and disappear.

Well played.

Rep to you both.

[Anti Federalist]

It is my understanding that bull-dikes refer to themselves because they adopt what they consider to be the "masculine" role in a relationship (the "male energy" as some Eastern philosophers call it). Correct me if I'm mistaken, though.

LOL, I was always curious about that.

You adopt a homosexual lifestyle and then assume traditional gender roles.

WTF is up with that?

ETA - It's "dyke" btw.

[osan]

The danger of being this open minded is your brain may fall out.

Holy crap that was funny.

Thread points winner, methinks. There's rep in them thar words.

[osan]

I disavow my American-ness, I disavow my maleness, I disavow my whiteness, I disavow life and die.

OK, perhaps we have a tie for the thread.

That said, I'd considered disavowing my penis, but it was simply way too much for any twenty thousand men to accomplish in a single lifetime.

[osan]

When can white people gain their balls back again.

In many cases it is sad fact that one cannot reclaim what was never theirs in the first place.

Behold, the power of Hollywood.

[KingNothing]

"The syllabus of the class, called Political Science 201: Research and Analysis, goes on to ask students “to write and speak in a way that does not assume American-ness, maleness, whiteness, heterosexuality, middle-class status, etc. to be the norm.”"


What is so wrong about that? Yes, people should try to use inclusive terminology. Fine. I mean, I agree that probably originated from a lady with an agenda, but there isn't anything inherently wrong with not assuming everyone who reads your words looks and acts just like you. If she really is only preaching what amounts to humility in thought and word, I don't have a problem with it. If she is actually a bigot or racist... well, she's as dumb as many believe her to be.

[BAllen]

Just another example of Marxist Critical Theory.
The goal is to bring down the white male power structure by classifying all other ethnic groups as 'victims' of white oppression. If it were not for whites, all the other groups would be free to reach their full potential. Any failure by any one of these groups is always due to 'racism'. There is even 'unconscious racism' if you fail to speak to a minority.

[tod evans]

Has anyone sent this thread to the university staff?

[osan]

Also, I think it's patently absurd that a lesbian can claim to be masculine, since they don't even know what it's like to be a man in the first place. It's just pure insanity.

We live in a world where for most, and I DO mean most, the distinction between fact/reason and feelings has never been established in any intellectually substantive way. The words are there but they effectively mean the same thing, in the very best of cases. In a more average case, reason has been marginalized to the point that it may as well not even exist. I have met literally thousands of such people over the years and every year the saturation of this sort of thinking grows within the whole. It has, IMO, now reached a critical mass as demonstrated by the rank insanity of reelecting Il Douche. This places us squarely in a position that may be very credibly regarded as the most dangerous in the nation's history - more so than even during the Revolutionary War. I assert this because in those days the mass of the people, rotten little fence sitters that they may have otherwise been, still had some basic wits about them. They lived "close to the land", to employ a terribly abused and trite term, and had few safety nets. The rigors of physical survival reduced their daily prospects to a small set of simple propositions that forced upon them a few glaringly stark choices. That reality forced those people to toe a minimal line in terms of how they comported themselves through their days. Be sensible or die or be maimed and then die.

That choice is now far above the normal daily reality of the average man, somewhere in the stratosphere. If one does not make the effort required to climb to yon dizzy heights, they are highly unlikely ever to fall and go <splat>. Yes, there are the other risks such as being eaten by Jeff Dahmer, but for all practical purposes those risks fade into the statistical mists. The safety nets are there and people have glommed onto them, choosing to live like idiots because they know someone will bail their sorry asses out.

But of course, there is a price in all of that: one's freedom. In order to survive by being that openly stupid, one must turn themselves over to other hands because the averages will simply refuse to support such lifestyles. One, therefore, turns himself over to the frame of reference provided by third parties and surrenders his autonomy, apparently with some considerable glee and relief that they will not be asked to actually assume responsibility for themselves in any way requiring detectable effort. Self-respect is replaced with self-esteem (a theme I may go into in another thread) and it is all downhill from self-absorbed there.

Given all this jaw, the dyke, the pansy, the white trash, the ghetto negro, the <fill in the blank with professional victim of choice>, all need to feel legitimate. Nothing wrong there, and I will accept even these nitwits' choices in lifestyle as such to the point they do not cost me anything in terms of trespass upon my estate. The truly crazy part, the one where they show themselves for the sad little imbeciles that they are is that they demand that the rest of the world provide them with their sense of being legitimate rather than providing it to themselves! What utter insanity is that? Seriously folks, if you think deeply on this the mind-bending aspect of the notion should come shouting out at you. Such people are emotionally dependent upon you for their senses of legitimacy as human beings!!! Wow. No, rather WOW!! That is so patently insane, so solidly clinical in the very fabric of its pathology that I am not sure I can cobble the words to do it justice.

The dangerous part, however, comes in the fact that they demand the world pay them homage and tribute, but not even in greedy measure, but rather in that normally reserved for the emperors of yore. And yet, no matter how much the world bends itself to their morbid demands, they are apparently never satisfied in far too many cases to make the rational man comfortable. And it has come to the point where the freedom, the literal physical freedom to move about, of those not paying such homage in some form is threatened.

Many years ago, a law was passed in NJ where you could go to prison if you called a woman a "lesbian". I lie not to you. The woman did not have to even be one! I believe that this law has yet to be used... I've never heard of a prosecutor pulling it out of his mighty bag of legalistic tricks, but as far as I know it remains on the books. This would have been some time in the mid- to late-80s, as I recall. It made the news for a day and all I could do was shake my head in near-disbelief.

So with the case in point, the lesbian is assuming a label describing a normal and commonly accepted attribute of the people of the majority and applying it to themselves. This serves two purposes, the first being the provision of a sense of normalcy and the second as a psychological invasion into the territory of the majority, the purpose there to FORCE the rest to accept them using an element of that majority's standard of "normal" as a challenge - a stick of sorts - against them. It is all very clever, I might add and it deserves some respect on that point. It is, however, also extremely sick and very dangerous to the culture as a whole so long as those in the majority continue to cede their rights to these aggressively cannibalistic minorities.

I am all for freedom. My definition of the term, however, does not include these sorts of intrusions upon the rights of others. ANY others. The members of the various "minorities" need to get over themselves and lay the hell off the rest of us because the day WILL come when enough shall be very much enough and at that point the one group will draw a bright line in the sand and declare, "this far and no further", which of course the idiot victims will ignore and then we will have open physical warfare on our hands and all those people will learn the fuller meaning of consequences and they will not likely prevail and life will just get uglier for us all.

Respect and acceptance cut all ways. Some people need to get that important fact into their heads and adjust their habits accordingly.

[osan]

"The syllabus of the class, called Political Science 201: Research and Analysis, goes on to ask students “to write and speak in a way that does not assume American-ness, maleness, whiteness, heterosexuality, middle-class status, etc. to be the norm.”"


What is so wrong about that? Yes, people should try to use inclusive terminology. Fine. I mean, I agree that probably originated from a lady with an agenda, but there isn't anything inherently wrong with not assuming everyone who reads your words looks and acts just like you. If she really is only preaching what amounts to humility in thought and word, I don't have a problem with it. If she is actually a bigot or racist... well, she's as dumb as many believe her to be.

D00d, this "requirement" is valid as a class exercise lasting perhaps a week, two at the most. It is NOT a legitimate requirement for an entire semester. "research and analysis" MEANS something, and I doubt that this sort of largely inane role playing is part of that meaning.

[July]

“Our language doesn’t make it easy to write in ways that are inclusive,” Howard said. “We don’t have a generic singular, I mean we have he and she. There is no pronoun that is gender-neutral there.”


English is already extremely neutral. The he/she thing is really not that a big of a deal compared to a lot of other languages....thats part of the reason so many around the world like it as a business language. But Howard is missing how rich and interpersonal a language can actually be with a lot of different types of pronouns, gender nuances, and formality changes, etc... So this just seems like splitting hairs to me.

[July]

"The syllabus of the class, called Political Science 201: Research and Analysis, goes on to ask students “to write and speak in a way that does not assume American-ness, maleness, whiteness, heterosexuality, middle-class status, etc. to be the norm.”"


What is so wrong about that? Yes, people should try to use inclusive terminology. Fine. I mean, I agree that probably originated from a lady with an agenda, but there isn't anything inherently wrong with not assuming everyone who reads your words looks and acts just like you. If she really is only preaching what amounts to humility in thought and word, I don't have a problem with it. If she is actually a bigot or racist... well, she's as dumb as many believe her to be.

Nothing wrong with it, but I'd say the best way to appreciate how the English language really works, and how neutral it is already, is to just survey/study a foriegn language... IMO. Sometimes you don't notice something until you have something else different to compare it too. Neutralness has benefits, but can also sometimes be more limiting and more difficult to express things...it can be impersonal, distant.

Besides this whole idea of formal, neutral impersonalness is a very American cultural thing...writing that way makes you sound more American not less, or so I'm told. :p

[tangent4ronpaul]

Might want to tell the conservative club on that campus that they will run into turbulence if they try to hold a bake sale and give minorities a discount...

On second thought, scratch that. There's not a snowballs chance in hell they would be allowed to have such a RACIST thing as a conservative club at that school.

-t

[AFPVet]

In college writing, this shouldn't even be addressed. People should have learned this in a freshman composition course at the very least. In fact, this should've been taught in their senior year of high school. It has no business being in a 200 level college course. As I mentioned earlier, many lower level courses are taught the same way as the upper level courses if the same professor teaches the 300-400 level. This must have been one of those 'review' courses... I hope. Some professors shouldn't be teaching in college. If they can't maintain the academic level expected in an accredited university, they shouldn't be teaching.

Of course, I may have nailed it right there... so many students are entering college unprepared. High schools aren't doing anything to help them along. This makes it harder for professors because they have to teach 'review courses' in order to get people caught up. Now I have no problem with 'offering' review courses for people who have been out of school for awhile, but making everyone take one of these courses is absurd.

Thank God my university wasn't like this. Butler must be getting the bottom of the bucket when it comes to professors.

[The Free Hornet]

I want you to write as if you are a crystal turtle from the Andromeda galaxy and you are speaking to the rainbow which is the the "collective" universe.... Soon you'll have to be stoned to pass the writing assignments. Good for him for dropping that garbage class.

I disagree. It is easy to best these tards on their own turf. In your example, the turtle could be a racist who came to shout at every color of the rainbow. That'd be ... fun. My guess is that yellow can't drive and red sometimes likes to give stuff and then take it back.

As regards using inclusive language - one only needs to define their terms or use the dictionary:


man

3. the human individual as representing the species, without reference to sex; the human race; humankind: Man hopes for peace, but prepares for war.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/man (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/man)

Throw in a footnote referencing the inclusive definition of every "non-exclusive" word used. Quote the OED if needed. That's like the bible to some profs.

Think of note taking as documenting the teacher's own racism, harrassment, and discriminatory practices. Use your library's interloan system to access the prof's graduate research (thesis and dissertation). Find out who she plagarized!

As an atheist with more Catholic education than most Catholics, I find it hard to be sympathetic. But just as the school is not here to reaffirm your own beliefs, students need to make it 100% clear that they are not their to affirm the school's beliefs either. If they can't put up with some gay* classes, then a liberal arts education is going to be very difficult in many places.



* gay, as in stupid or just as in gay