Posts
Back in the day, college freshmen went to pep rallies. They
wore college beanies. They learned college songs and chants and cheers. They
were welcomed into a cohesive community. And they learned the customs and mores that made them members of the community.
Perhaps they still do. But, they are also forced to undergo
diversity training. If the pep rallies bring students together, the diversity
training divides them against each other.
Incoming Princeton Freshman Carrie Pritt recently reported on
the diversity training class that she attended. In it, every student was forced
to stand up and to identify as a member of one or another racial, ethnic, social
or gender group.
Pritt explained her experience:
“Stand
up if you identify as Caucasian.”
The minister’s
voice was solemn. I paused so that I wouldn’t be the first one standing, and
then slowly rose to my feet. “Look at your community,” he said. I glanced
around the auditorium obediently. The other students looked as uncomfortable as
I felt, and as white. ¨Thank you,” the minister said finally. After we sat
down, he went on to repeat the exercise for over an hour with different
adjectives in place of “Caucasian”: black, wealthy, first-generation, socially
conservative. Each time he introduced a new label, he paused so that a new
group of students could stand and take note of one another. By the time he was
finished, every member of Princeton University’s freshman class had been
branded with a demographic.
Whatever his intention, the minister was atomizing the
Freshman class. Pritt concluded:
The
message was clear: know your kind and stick to it. Don’t risk offending people
from other backgrounds by trying to understand their worldviews.
More importantly, the exercise shows that diversity training
divides a class and a campus into discordant groups, identified by something
other than their membership in the Princeton community. If diversity training divides the class against itself it breaks down group cohesion. Then
it is counterproductive, contrary to the best interest of the group itself. The
problem does not involve stripping students of their individuality. It involves
atomizing a community and undermining their sense of belonging.
I trust that Princeton still has fight songs and cheers and
college beanies. And yet, why does the administration insist on undermining
group cohesion by forcing every student to become hyperconscious of his or her
identity as a member of a racial or ethnic or social group?
One suspects that in a social organization that does not
cohere by following common customs and mores, the only way that people can feel
like they belong is by thinking what other people think and feeling what other
people feel. By any other name, it’s mind control.
8 comments:
My Last 10 years in Fed Civil Service had Tons of mandatory "seminars".
Racism. Sexism. Ethnic Bias. Sex Harassment. Lookism. Yes, Diversity - "it makes the Navy a more effective Fighting Force" - some such twaddle. Others I can't remember offhand.
"Takeaways" is the jargon.
* Staring at breasts or bodies will ruin your career. Or worse.
* One wrong word will ruin your career. "Uvula" got me in trouble. Also botflies.
* If a minority person (females included) Feels you offended him/her - you did. RYC.
* Vulgar language - RYC. If you are a white male.
* Playboy mag in desk drawer - RYC.
Others. Us white males were on eggshells. Funny, I was always super considerate.
Price of progress, I guess. -- Rich Lara
Stuart: I trust that Princeton still has fight songs and cheers and college beanies. And yet, why does the administration insist on undermining group cohesion by forcing every student to become hyperconscious of his or her identity as a member of a racial or ethnic or social group?
It's a tough issue for me, since I never felt anything positive about "pep rallies", and they DID seem like "mind control", but apparently not very effect since I dismissed them as boring, and I can't even imagine how to identify what "customs and mores" I missed or learned in how to fit in.
I don't know if focusing on ethnic or racial differences is good or not or what problems that causes, or how it might be done better. Pride and shame in ancestry or heritage always seems complicated, and people can be sensitive in ways you can't predict. What causes one to be "hyperconscious"? Does pointing out differences always cause that?
It would be good to see how others experienced the "training", and maybe it could be improved?
I've always appreciated seeing cultural differences while holding no special pride nor shame in mine.
On self-consciousness, I remember after learning about Nazi Germany in elementary school, and then met an exchange student was from Germany, I asked him about it, and he expressed shame over that heritage, and I suddenly realized a little what it might be like to have shame from my ancestors, and it made me realize I should be careful.
And I still can't imagine what it would be like if my ancestors were slaves, but I'm sure I'd rather have enslaved ancestors than slavers, even if amazing grace can save us all.
My employer, an engineering company has perhaps up to 40% nonnative born engineers, including so many countries - China, Japan, Australia, India, South Africa, Iran, Yugoslavia, France, Spain, UK, Sweden, Canada, Mexico, and Chile, among others. And only just recently they added little flags on our office doors for our country of origin.
I admit I was flattered that one engineer from India said he thought I think like an Indian, which wasn't clear exactly what he meant, except maybe being studious or nerdish. He also explained about his caste system, and his caste was just below royalty, so admitting he had special advantages. He also said it was the British who encouraged this system, because they needed compentent administrators from the countries within their empire.
Class always seemed more trouble clear trouble than race or ethnic background. And yet that's where education can be the great equalizer, even if things are not equal. I think knowing someone came from a harder background than me would make me admire them more, but a jerk is a jerk no matter how good or bad you had it.
I missed all that in college. Then, there was no diversity training. Then, I lived at home.
Sam L,
You probably earned and received a real education and not an indoctrination. I would suggest that tech companies are utilizing H-1B visa because the education system is producing graduates that are wholly unprepared to do the job. About the only job they can come close to is working for the government in Washington DC and many state capitals.
Tech companies and places like Disney get the cheap labor they want at the expense of American labor and graduates. I won't even discuss what academe is doing to the legal profession. Even a dumbed down bar examination is to difficult for many graduates for this nation's law schools. http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/aba_house_rejects_proposal_to_tighten_bar_pass_standards_for_law_schools/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=site_rss_feeds
Watching that female professor of the lobster porn fame babble was a perfect example of the quality of scholarship that appears to exist in many of our academic institutions. If the professoriate is this poor then it makes one wonder at the quality of education their graduates have earned. If it was my education that was being dumbed down like this I would be tempted to sue the academic institution for fraud. The hard part may be in finding a qualified lawyer.
"Back in the day, college freshmen went to pep rallies. They wore college beanies. They learned college songs and chants and cheers. They were welcomed into a cohesive community. And they learned the customs and mores that made them members of the community."
Before the destroyers set out to do what they do best: destroy. Now all we have is THEIR idea of what "community" is, which is belonging to Leftist groups. That's their definition of openness and inclusion.
And that's why they align with the Islamists: submit, or else.
And all of the rest of ya can go #%$& yourselves.
Not to make too fine a point, but anyone paying even a slight bit of attention to the oral arguments at the Ninth Circuit, especially the plaintiffs' side, leads one to ask "Did these people actually graduate from law school and pass the bar?" There were very few times that the judges and/or the lawyers touched upon the law which was in question. I have a friend who is a judge and he had some of the best lawyer's jokes. Now I know why. If you had to face face this emotion driven drivel every day???????????????????
Sad part is that the further we get from the text of the Constitution the less value is placed upon the law. If the Constitution needs to be updated then there is the amendment process. It is not the purview of judges to make law because then the law begins to lose it status and applicability to the people it is supposed to defend and protect.
This all starts in academia where their graduates are bereft of any semblance of historical perspective and context. No wonder we have reached the point where the only laws they want enforced are the laws that meet their political machinations and all others are subjected to an emotional nullification. Where litigation leads logic almost always fails to follow.
Dennis, These judges and lawyers have imagined themselves the high priests of our society. Robes and all. It's amazing they don't use candles in their proceedings!
These judges and lawyers know everything... just ask them. They claim reverence for the law, but don't refer to it unless it suits them. They create complexity so they can enact law by whatever fancy suits them. It's a mirage. Pay attention to what the other hand is doing. They ALL do this... right up to Chief Justice Roberts' imaginations of a "tax" that exists nowhere in the ObamaCare statute. Roberts just... made it up! And let's be honest: the political process is the worst possible way to allocate resources. The absolute worst. Yet government grows. Because it's magic. It's sorcery. It's pixie dust.
"This all starts in academia where their graduates are bereft of any semblance of historical perspective and context."
Well, when you've imagined yourself a secular priest, you don't have to answer to anyone. Not when you have a Protestant understanding. Sadly, the Catholic relationship has also moved in this direction, because subjective dogma, doctrine and rule making is sooooooo delicious. It's your opportunity to play God.
With a Protestant understanding, one has a direct line with one's Creator, who tells one what the truth is. Indeed, it commissions the "believer" to be a reliable vehicle for truth... if you believe that. And the. Truth becomes Truth.
To my mind, this is the source of chaos within mainstream Christianity today. There is simply no controlling theological and/or interpretive authority. No Supreme Court. It's all about one's relationship
and conversation with Jesus. And THIS is what has destroyed Christian authority in the West today.
It is amazing to me how mainstream Protestantism has become so enamored with personal justification and license through prayer and reflection, yet simultaneously claims God's judgment over decisions.
Again, our arguments trace back to justification. But facts are stubborn things. Or dogmas. Or interpretations. Or imaginations. If any of these things mean whatever a single human being thinks it means, it means nothing at all. And if it is so subjective and arrived at through social means, it has no authority but by self-proclamation.
And we whine about the malignant strains of individualism? It begins with faith. It begins with how one holds their relationship with the eternal. If you believe you have a red phone hotline with gen eternal, then... well... you and I can't really have a conversation, can we? You've got it all figured out. There's no room for me and my contribution.
But let's be honest, once you have imaginations that serve as justification, your have self-worship. Just sayin'.
I can only imagine what Ares Olympus' Bible study is like. Yeesh.
Post a Comment