Deny yourself

I really see nothing wrong with this. It is an exercise in seeing the world without the glasses of your upbringing in order to fully understand how others see us and see the world around them. Looking at other points of view and embracing them on their face rather than deriding them because you have been programmed a certain way by your environment.

Sounds very worth while.

OK - five comments which had little or nothing to do with the blog topic and needed to be deleted.

By the way, janetluvshorses/Achieve1/Nathan - you are done. You are no longer welcome here due to your apparent inability to follow the Discussion Guidelines. I'm sure you'll be back under a new moniker, but over time it's easy to pick out those who have been given the boot who try to sneak back on. :)

WFB and Sharpaxe: Please stay on topic and you will be OK. No need to react to janetluvshorses usual taunts and personal attacks.

Let's try starting over...

All the professor is asking is to leave your pre conceived notions at the door, when attending his class.

If one was secure in their manhood, they'd have no problem setting it asside to see something from a genderless view..
If one was secure in their race, they'd have no problem setting it asside to see something from a colorless view..
If one was truly patriotic, they'd have no problem setting it asside to see something from a global view..
etc, etc.

What garbage, jman99. What is happening in the classroom at Butler is nothing more than picking on white heterosexual American males simply because they are white, heterosexual American males. The African American female professor is not making other students in the class who do not fit that definition do anything differently. Isn't that rather "racist" or "bigoted" of her? All in the desire for "social justice." Sounds more like punishing the white heterosexual American males in front of the rest of the class. Trying to "reprogram" them as the article suggests. I think something is seriously wrong with the professor, but something is also seriously wrong with you, jman99, to think there is nothing wrong here.
Imagine for one moment if a white male professor at Butler, under the guise of "social justice" singled out black heterosexual American males and made them speak and write (and think) in a different way than they were accustomed to. Want to know what would happen (after the ACLU and NAACP got done suing the professor and university?)? That professor would lose his job -for being racist. For being a bigot. He would be run out of town by every leftie group imaginable.
Again, "social justice" is only "good" when liberals do it. Then they get nodding bobbleheads from the likes of jmann99. Disgusting.

MGarber: Obviously you did not read the article very closely, otherwise you would have read the following:

"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."

The professor is a "she" not a "he" as you comment.

As for your comment in general - much like jman99 - its garbage. The "touchy-feely" liberal garbage that the left is so fond of - only when THEY are the ones doing it. All in the name of "social justice." Gag me.

Read my past comment and try to deny what I point out - if a white, male professor had made black, heterosexual males speak, write (and think) a different way than they normally did, he would be fired in addition to facing a multitude of lawsuits from the ACLU and NAACP, etc. Try denying that one.

"As for your comment in general - much like jman99 - its garbage. The "touchy-feely" liberal garbage that the left is so fond of - only when THEY are the ones doing it. All in the name of "social justice." Gag me."

See, that's the kind of thing they are asking to be left at the door. If you walked into that classroom with those notions, you would not learn a thing.

" I think something is seriously wrong with the professor, but something is also seriously wrong with you, jman99, to think there is nothing wrong here. "

Nope nothing wrong.

It is a political science class.

What the heck do you thing they discuss and research in a political science class?

Go back to school Hemmer, you might learn something.

jman99: If what the political science professor was doing was incorporating "discussion" and "research" - why did the professor only target white, heterosexual American males? Because SHE deemed them to have "inherent prejudices." SHE wanted to "negate" them. The other students in the class were AOK - they weren't targeted because they supposedly didn't suffer from prejudices in the eyes of this professor! Isn't that rather prejudiced in itself? Bigoted? Racist?

And I notice you avoided commenting on my following statement that exposes this whole concept for what it is - a bigoted approach to "reprogramming" a certain type of person that liberals such as this nutty professor deem unfit:

"Imagine for one moment if a white male professor at Butler, under the guise of "social justice" singled out black heterosexual American males and made them speak and write (and think) in a different way than they were accustomed to. Want to know what would happen (after the ACLU and NAACP got done suing the professor and university?)? That professor would lose his job -for being racist. For being a bigot. He would be run out of town by every leftie group imaginable.
Again, "social justice" is only "good" when liberals do it. Then they get nodding bobbleheads from the likes of jmann99. Disgusting."

Hemmer is right how dare Butler University challenge its students to think outside
their comfort zone. Or even having them challenge their personal beliefs. What do
these teachers think, that the students are there to learn how to think for
themselves?

How dare this teacher attempt to instill empathy for another person when they
should be instilling indifference and intolerance toward those outside their social
circle.

Yes Hemmer white middle class people have inherent prejudice (especially white males) and they are homophobic. They see the world through their eyes which are the eyes of the white middle class. They can help it as this is the world most of them have been brought up in. Is it wrong? No, that's just they way they are because of their environment and social standing.

As they are the largest part of who's going to college, having them think outside of their comfort zone is something I highly recommend. Not to belittle them, but to allow them to see further than they have ever seen. How can you possible see a problem or a challenge from the perspective of another if you don't at least try to walk a mile in their shoes?

What this prof wants to do is to have blindfolded students describe the elephant by touch when they don't know it's an elephant.

In research and analysis you must always put your prejudice outside the work, or the work is worthless because it is tainted by the way you perceive the facts. You must gather the facts first and let the data stand on its own. doing anything else is useless, because you get the answer you want rather than the real answer which can be totally different from what you want.

Jman and Ex, whatever you do, don't judge! Anything goes! I have to laugh at this
nitwit professor, or whatever she is. This is why politics and journalism is such a
mess. No critical analysis. Just lazy, blame whitey, and be done. This why sports,
entertainment and political journalism is all tabloid all the time. Never is their a
discussion of ideas. Just walk in the room, declare that everybody is racist and you
are neutered before the discussion gets started

If there is a God in heaven, please help us out of this sewer!

Well Jman, how about talking about the benefits of incest? I mean you have the
convenience of having it under one roof, with a caring adult...blah, blah blah.
Kinda sick, huh? So is your dyke rant against white men. You even try to put that
blindfold on a gay women at a Liberal Arts school and they will scream bloody
murder against the white guy. I've seen it happen at Madison.

The problem is they all need someone to blame. Too often it's the guy. We can all
play the blame game but then we wouldn't get to far would we?

Yert: It has nothing to do with blame, it is a critical thinking exercise.

Leave everything at the door and walk in with a totally open mind, free of you're parent's worst nightmares and greatest hopes. Start from a position of being not yourself and look at the problem critically from that standpoint.

Very difficult to do, well worth the effort.

jman99 claims this bigoted activity was a "critical thinking exercise."

One of the students in the bigoted professor's class thinks otherwise:

"As a student at an institution predominantly focused on the liberal arts, I expected to hear professors express opinions different from my own. I did not expect to be judged before I ever walked through the door, and did not think I would be forced to agree with my teachers’ worldviews or suffer the consequences.
Being judged and forced to act a certain way is antithetical to how any institution of higher education should conduct itself.
As a journalism major, I will now strive to avoid the liberal arts college as much as possible, not because the college fails to provide its students with any practical knowledge, but because the college seeks to indoctrinate its students with a hostile paradigm that views people like me—an American, white, heterosexual male from a middle-class background—as evil; whitey-righty need not attend." - Ryan Lovelace

Exactly. However, I think Mr. Lovelace's words make too much sense to be understood by the likes of libs like jman99 or MGarber...

That is a great point . When will we see a class that tells all the gay people to write
as heteralsexual ? How about the minorities only to write as if they are caucasions ?
lol... Is it not stupid to singole out only one group ? Yep it is .

"Mr lovelace's words make to much sense to be understood by the likes of libs
like..."

What an absurd statement.

It is obvious that Mr Lovelace wrote the article out of spite.

It seems to me that there is more missing from the story than what has been
presented. For instance I would presume that not everyone in the class is a straight
white male from an American middle-class family. What instructions were the
persons who don't fit that demographic given? Did this teacher (which isn't
mentioned by name but described) tell the females in the class to forget their
maleness? Or foreign students to forget their comfort"American-ness"??

Arrg...strike the word comfort which appears just before American-ness.

I see one student uncomfortable with a teachers directions. He makes no
mention of others sharing his point of view. I don't consider one class to be some
type of indoctrination of our youth.

The first paragraph in the article states that students should disregard their maleness, American-ness, etc. The fourth paragraph writes that they should write as if those aren't assumed to be the norm. Is the author's interpretation of that syllabus what he's taking issue with? Were white men further attacked in the discussions in class? We don't hear anything about that, which I infer means they weren't. The author of the article would certainly tell us.

Are we to understand that not being the norm is inherently bad? Were the students instructed to assume that the norm of discussion is black women? Perhaps I'm not as enlightened as some, but my experience in the media has been that if not employed full-time by the news station, a black commenter is assumed to speak from a black perspective. A woman brings women's issues. A white man is bringing a broader perspective. The language we've been given from the syllabus simply says we should assume the white man is bringing a man's perspective. Not that this is undesirable... only that it should be understood.

The point here is this: the norms of discussion in American society assume a white, heterosexual, middle-class American. It's what most people at Butler bring to the table. The maleness is less of a slam dunk for assumed norms, but clearly femaleness is not assumed. So the professor hasn't explicitly asked them to recognize that identities which are commonly understood not to be the assumed norm are not necessarily the norm. Oh, no. Provide evidence (even an out-of-context quote from the professor's lectures) that these identities are being demonized or I won't assume it's any worse than the syllabus.

To make the point about being a white American man as the norm clear, would the author of the article have mentioned the gender of the professor if she weren't a woman? Would he mention her race if she were white? We only occasionally make mention that someone is heterosexual, and that only to point out that they're not gay. That demonstrates the norms we assume, while this professor has said the students shouldn't automatically assume that.

Those are excellecent and well presented points, Peter.
Amy might do well if she took the cource being described.

I disagree Peter, I don't think anyone assuumes that it's all coming from a white male perspective. Where have you been for the past 40 years?

I was also wondering what made a African american woman a professional on being
a Heteraklsexual white male ? How would she know what that is like ? Matter of fact
how can one individual; male consider himself to be a professional on all white
males ? Yet the PDLS's allow such stupid classes to do what ? ...... Teach what ?.....
A perception ? ......

If one does not have the ability to think, write or argue from a perspective other than their own, they will have a hard time succeeding in life.

This situation looks like a typical Liberal Arts professor imposing her style and giving her students fair warning that they will be graded according to that style. This is no different than most employers hold their employees accountable in customer service roles. As long as the professor enforces this policy to make all students from all backgrounds leave their prejudices and ethnic/cultural "niche" attitudes out of the classroom, it sounds like a fair policy. If she does not, it sounds like a tougher class for some than for others, but again, she plainly stated the rules up front.

The author of this article says it all when he proclaimed that he dropped the class and states "I’ll speak as I always have and conduct myself in the way I deem fit. I think paying $40,000 a year should give me that basic right."

Good luck in the real world Ryan Lovelace - Instead of rising to the challenge of dealing with an "oddball" teacher, you quit. Not sure what kind of Liberal Arts education your $40K/yr is going to give you if you only pick easy social studies classes where you don't have to change your thought process, language or attitude. If you can't hack a quirky teacher in Poli-Sci, how are you going to deal with Philosophy, Theology, Foreign Language, or Anthropology courses? If you discard the need to recognize a universal audience in your writing, you won't even be able to write an effective manual for a toaster with your Journalism degree.

Not sure where you were headed with this Blog topic Amy but I don't see much difference with this professor's approach to her class and a Theology Professor telling the Jews and Christians in his/her class that they have to drop their inherent religious perspectives in class in order to best understand the Buddhist and Muslim chapters.

Spot on, Mucho. Never let it be said that you dont have moments of laser clarity.

Mgarber - Perhaps my comments were just a ruse to demonstrate I could get an "A" in that radical anti-white, male hating, Liberal teacher's class. :)

Funny how a conservative will always balk at being viewed as agreeing with a
liberal with most anything.

Mucho: I completely disagree with your comment. What is at play here is liberalism at its finest, nothing more. Goofiness in the classroom to the nth degree. And, Mucho, many students do not know the exact syllabus or what is expected of them until after the class begins. In other words, there were probably no "red flags" at registration that this class was going to be a racist, anti-white exercise - making the white, American male students targets.
In the views of this professor, American white males are racist. (And on the side, our own president puts forth the notion that we should not be proud of our own country. There will be just one world order - and white, American, heterosexual males need not apply.) These white male students somehow deserve the scorn of this prof - why? Because this professor and other liberals nodding their heads in agreement believe they are a racist. Again I must ask - how racist is that very notion?
And again I must ask - just imagine if a white male teacher did this exact same "exercise" with black males? After the university and professor got done being sued by every leftie organization imaginable, the professor would be out of work.

By the way, the comparison of this class and a worker in a customer service department following job descriptions doesn't ring true. Employers have certain expectations of employees which all employees are expected to follow. Employers usually are not out to "negate" a person's pre-assumed viewpoints in the workplace.

What this professor did - or is doing - is wrong on so many levels.

"Employers usually are not out to "negate" a person's pre-assumed viewpoints in the workplace."

What planet is that on?

Obviously you've never worked at any place where the workers were trying to certify a union.

jman99: I still notice that you and the other lefties commenting here have failed to address my following comment:

"Imagine for one moment if a white male professor at Butler, under the guise of "social justice" singled out black heterosexual American males and made them speak and write (and think) in a different way than they were accustomed to. Want to know what would happen (after the ACLU and NAACP got done suing the professor and university?)? That professor would lose his job -for being racist. For being a bigot. He would be run out of town by every leftie group imaginable."

And again, comparing this classroom "excercise" is not a fair or reasonable comparison to the workplace. For one thing, students are paying for an education (if the government isn't picking up the check for them already). They are not paying to be singled out for some leftie experiment at the hands of a bigoted anti-white male teacher.
In the workplace, employees do NOT pay to work. An employer pays them - and expects them to adhere to the rules of employement in a workplace. Very big difference.

"jman99: I still notice that you and the other lefties commenting here have failed to address my following comment:

"Imagine for one moment if a white male professor at Butler, under the guise of "social justice" singled out black heterosexual American males and made them speak and write (and think) in a different way than they were accustomed to. Want to know what would happen (after the ACLU and NAACP got done suing the professor and university?)? That professor would lose his job -for being racist. For being a bigot. He would be run out of town by every leftie group imaginable.""

I wrote:
"Yes Hemmer white middle class people have inherent prejudice (especially white males) and they are homophobic. They see the world through their eyes which are the eyes of the white middle class. They can help it as this is the world most of them have been brought up in. Is it wrong? No, that's just they way they are because of their environment and social standing.

As they are the largest part of who's going to college, having them think outside of their comfort zone is something I highly recommend. Not to belittle them, but to allow them to see further than they have ever seen. How can you possible see a problem or a challenge from the perspective of another if you don't at least try to walk a mile in their shoes?

What this prof wants to do is to have blindfolded students describe the elephant by touch when they don't know it's an elephant.

In research and analysis you must always put your prejudice outside the work, or the work is worthless because it is tainted by the way you perceive the facts. You must gather the facts first and let the data stand on its own. doing anything else is useless, because you get the answer you want rather than the real answer which can be totally different from what you want. "

Now part two of that:
Very often people are assigned personalities to take on when presenting a point of view about a topic. Happens in Political science all the time. It also happens in Law classes when you want young lawyers to be able to step into the shoes of their clients in order to mount their best defence of the client.

It's called empathic thinking. It has been going on for years.

The author of your article ( we have no proof of attending the class or is enrolled at the university, only his word. ) is trying desperately to score points with the right wing establishment and is saying what they want to hear. The article has been linked into a zillion rightie sites by now. No second article, no other information. Just lots of mindless ranting an raving about a perceived injustice to straight white middle class males.

If that's how the right does news, it's no wonder your party is in so much trouble.

"If that's how the right does news,..."
If a bear does it in the woods...
If the Pope's catholic...

"....it's no wonder your party is in so much trouble. "
And the sad part is many of them dont even know that. The "core" still thinks it wasnt conservative enough; which is almost the same as not hysterical enough.

jman99 states: "Very often people are assigned personalities to take on when presenting a point of view about a topic. Happens in Political science all the time. It also happens in Law classes when you want young lawyers to be able to step into the shoes of their clients in order to mount their best defence of the client.
It's called empathic thinking. It has been going on for years."

I have absolutely no problem with "role-playing" in the classroom as a teaching tool. What the Butler prof. was doing wasn't "role-playing." It was picking on certain individuals because the prof. judged them to be racist and telling them to act and think differently, cuz she deemed them to be prejudiced before they even set foot in her classroom.

As for the "news" - the mainstream media of today does not consist of "journalists." Honest, real journalism died decades ago. Todays "news" reporters are little more than "entertainment reporters." And most are card-carrying members of the Obama Fan Club. The news of today is so distorted and spun in such a way that it is no wonder "rightie" sites have sprung up to counter-act the blatant lies and distortions coming from the leftie media. What's really ironic is in the socialist/communist world that Obama is leading us towards, the "journalists" are the first to go - although I would say the current crop of "news" reporters is so far in the leftie tank that they wouldn't mind totally being taken over by the government.

"....cuz she deemed them to be prejudiced before they even set foot in her classroom."

Well its true!

We are all prejudiced by our upbringing and our environment. What she wanted to do is weed out "most privileged" thinking from the discussion.

At no point did she say she thought they were racists.

What a tempest in a tea pot.

Lets see , I keephearing on how white males are a smaller group than females in
colleges ! Not only that but most people who own businesses are white males ! If so
, Why would you make the white males change ? Are they not the leaders in industry
in this country ? Not onlyt that but would it not be better to make the females and
minorities learn to change if they will be imployed by percentages by a white male ?
So your argument that it teaches the white males to adjust is moot . Why does this
class not try to teach those that need it more ? lol...

WFB, thank you for proving the premise that this prof. was setting out in the syllabus.

Amy,

The first paragraph that you quoted isn't supported by the evidence provided in the rest of the article, as I pointed out before. It's meant to be a quick summary of what follows. As I said, a few paragraphs later, the syllabus is quoted to say writing shouldn't assume that being white is the norm (as well as the other identifiers of mainstream America, such as being middle class, American, and heterosexual).

The student talks to the dean of the college of arts and sciences and a journalism professor. The person he doesn't quote is the professor, aside from the syllabus itself. The dean talks about questioning assumptions, then talks about "inclusive language." I'll confess I don't know what inclusive language is, in that I don't know what it means to write a sentence that "affirms" differing racial and ethnic backgrounds. If anything, it looks meaningless rather than subversive.

The journalism professor talks about "writing from a black woman's point of view," which isn't what is required in the syllabus. It only requires that students write as if not everyone is a white man.

The best analogy I can think of at the moment is about religion in the public sphere. Those arguing for displays of the Ten Commandments or for Christian values to be reflected in the laws often argue that the United States is a Christian nation, so Christian values should be reflected. The text of the syllabus wouldn't call for Christian values to be ignored... it would only say that the "Christian nation" argument should be left at the door.

Yert, you're right that no one thinks everything is from a white man's perspective anymore. But the white man is often viewed as outside of identity politics. Granted, that's not the way the left has been describing political identification (especially following the most recent election), but the white guy is seen as a liberal or conservative. They go to a black guy for the black perspective and a woman for a woman's perspective.

A real inquiry of this supposed bias against white men would have spoken to the professor who provided the syllabus. It would have included an example of "inclusive language." At the very least, the article should reflect some attempt to get clarification from the professor, such as "the professor of this class was not available for comment as of the writing of this article."

With regard to Amy's objection about a double standard for white men, it's not relevant at Butler (or UW-Madison or most other universities in this country). If I told a black man that he shouldn't view being a black man as the norm, he would laugh at me. Why? Because unless you're in the African-American studies department, that's obvious. The norm could be race-neutral or white. But it's certainly not black.

Would I support a man in the gender studies or women's studies department saying that his students shouldn't assume being a woman is the norm? Yes. From the reputation of women's studies courses, it would be a brave stand to take, but that's neither here nor there. It would be conducive to productive classroom discussion.

Hemmer -

I'm still missing it. To start off with, foreign exchange students don't get a break on punctuation in grammar class and someone offended by a teacher that expects her students to check their pre-programmed thoughts at the door doesn't belong in an institute of higher learning.

While most university campuses are bastions of liberalism, students should get poor grades if they show up in a poli-sci class and regurgitate conservatism just because "that's how they were brought up". Same goes for lefties.

Mucho -

I'm still missing it. I have no clue what your reference to foreign exchange students not "getting a break on punctuation in grammar class" means (what is "grammar class" anyhow?)...

And who said ANYTHING about "regurgitating conservatism" in a classroom??? Students usually go to a university to learn. To learn from their professors and other students. To earn a degree so they can get a job (OK, so getting a job is now very difficult thanks to Barry, but heck, these graduates can STILL live at home on their parents dime and health care till their late 20's!!! And then there is always the government dole! Ain't life grand!)...
I don't think students who are conservative walk into a classroom and start spouting "smaller government" and "personal responsibility" out of nowhere. Besides, most colleges and teachers ARE liberals. Most students (and some teachers) who are conservative tend to keep it quiet for the most part because they know that the leftie profs and leftie teachers who hate a conservative viewpoint have the power to give bad grades and make their classroom experiences less than pleasant.

Now, how does this smarter-than-thou liberal professor know that only certain students have "pre-programmed thoughts" (that are, of course, only applicable to white, heterosexual, American males) which she deems herself in charge of altering? Excluding all others from the same exercise who do not fall into her mold of those evil white, American, heterosexual males?

Just a page out of the Obama playbook - alive and well at Butler University.



Again, I have to ask, if a white male professor had done the same - and targeted black male students to not "think black" and instead "think white" - don't you think the NAACP and ACLU would have jumped all over this university and the professor? You're darn right and I rest my case.

Amy,

The parts of the syllabus quoted don't say students shouldn't think white. They say students should recognize it's not the only way to think, and they shouldn't implicitly denigrate other views.

You're absolutely right that if a white professor told black students to deny their racial identities, he would be chased out of town. But that has nothing to do with writing as if white identity isn't the norm.

Please either point out where a viewpoint is being suppressed in the text of the article or admit that we don't have any evidence of it.

Peter123, you are a good hindsight manipulator. No viewpoints are being
suppressed, they are being channeled into the professor's POV and consequently
squeezed into a narrow stream. Step outside, your racist. Better yet, a white
status quo Neanderthal.

This is the laziest form of higher education. She closed down the argument before
it ever got started. Unfortunately, this IS what liberals do. The fact that some of you
writing here cannot see this base attempt to manipulate open and free thought is
disgusting. Amy is correct. The only place this could ever happen is on the
campus of so-called higher learning. As a graduate of the UW-Madison, I'm
appalled. Not that it happened, but that it happens so much that liberals now
defend it like it's an every day occurrence!

Yert, how are they being channeled? By admitting that other views exist?

The only reason the argument is shut down is because Mr. Lovelace dropped the class before entering the discussion. Again, saying we shouldn't act like general society is just like us isn't suppressive. The parts of the syllabus quoted didn't say students should view the norm as a gay, lower-class, black woman. They just shouldn't assume that it's a straight, middle-class, white man.

The professor has implicitly presented two viewpoints here: One, that the assumed normative viewpoint among her students (as a part of American society) is white, middle-class, heterosexual, American, and male. This is the way politics are presented, as well as in general society - those not in those groups are special interests. Saying it directly obviously bothers some. Could it be better if she had said "don't assume that maleness is the norm or that femaleness is the norm; that heterosexuality is the norm or that homosexuality is the norm..."? Perhaps. But no one is going to argue that homosexuality is the norm in American society at this time (although acceptance of homosexuality is getting there).

Two, that discussion is facilitated by putting different groups on even starting grounds. That if one group is seen as mainstream and others are seen as special interests or outsiders, it can stifle discussion. That an open mind is the best route to learning. If your argument in wider society assumes that people in general are like you, perhaps you need to rephrase your argument.

In a word, baloney! To say that "all politics is presented in a white, middle-class,
heterosexual, male perspective is just a balled faced lie. I do not accept the
premise. I wish she had said what you think she said. But she did not! Your
affirmative action to shepherd her reverse racism while subsequently stating that
people who see through this flimsy attempt to stomp on other views is a nice try.
Seriously, you're trying to varnish what she said, but the bottom-line is that it cannot
stand up to one thing, the truth!

Regarding politics, I didn't say all. I said that's the norm. I'd say 70-80% of political coverage assumes those describe the American mainstream. Please stop trying to paint much more extreme positions on me than what I actually take.

Regarding the professor, this is the last time I'm going to point this out... if you keep ignoring me, I'll leave it be. Here are the parts of the article that quote something put out by the professor:

"The syllabus of the course at Butler, a small Midwestern liberal arts institution in Indianapolis, spells out that students should use 'inclusive language' because it’s 'a fundamental issue of social justice.'

"'Language that is truly inclusive affirms sexuality, racial and ethnic backgrounds, stages of maturity, and degrees of limiting conditions,' the syllabus states, referencing a definition created by the United Church of Christ.

"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."

Everything outside of this is editorializing by the author of the piece or statements from others who may or may not have discussed the syllabus with the professor.

The first two paragraphs state that the language used shouldn't box anyone out of the discussion. It's fluff and may require verbal gymnastics, but including people isn't subversive unless your argument was that they don't deserve recognition. Note: I know you're not saying they're not part of society.

The last paragraph outlines what the professor thinks are the existing norms, then instructs students not to write for these norms. Present your arguments for the broader public.

Please point out which specific section offends you.

here is a swift one : jman said "WFB, thank you for proving the premise that this
prof. was setting out in the syllabus."
So the reason a student goers to school is to help a Professor prove a presmise !
jman the reason you go to college is to get an education to make your life better in
the work force . If you teach a white male to buck th4e system what does that do for
the white male ? It hurts him . Not only that but women like us are not being helped
to deal with whit males when they are owners of businesses ! Why are you this
warped ?

Peter i do agree that the political news is (seen as being given), in the media as a
white males version . But you have to admit that they are the ones as a whole who
actually pay attention to politics on a daily basis !!! That is probobly why white males
did not vote over whelming for the o . They know what he is like !

I have to laugh at people who see this as a form of racism or some attempt at
thought manipulation.
1st on her list is "american-ness", is "american-ness" exclusive to a white male?

Darn liberals trying to get people to think beyond their own little worlds.

Carl Hicks: Judging from the recent election results, I would say that "American-ness" is sadly lacking in almost half of the country. The Obama voters wanted "things" and voted accordingly. They could have cared less about those famous words from John F. Kennedy (probably the last "real" Democrat this country has seen) : "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
We now have almost half the people in the United States who "ask what the country can do for them" and vote with those words in mind.

As I mentioned in a comment from another blog, a yard sign I saw after the election tells it all: "God Bless the United States and the Blue States, too."

What a sad state of affairs - when "entitlements" are desired and hard work and success is frowned upon and a target for the "takers."

God Bless the united states but not the blue states !! lol... Lets start teaching kids to
become good at their jobs ! Not to make Professors feel good !

"here is a swift one : jman said "WFB, thank you for proving the premise that this
prof. was setting out in the syllabus."
So the reason a student goers to school is to help a Professor prove a presmise ! "

Yup, you are the swift one.

ahemmer: You're right. We're very far away from a traditional America. When JFK uttered those famous words, the top tax rate was 90%. And the top earning CEO made only 20 times what his lowest paid worker made.

It was part of the greatest part of our history when neighbors helped other neighbors both locally and nationally. We thought of what we could do for our country and our countrymen, not for our richest 1 or 2%.

We need to go back to that America when people sacrificed their own well-being for the sake of the group.

Obama changes his dialect, inflection and "ethnicity" of his speech to match his audience. Perhaps this teacher is providing her students with training on how to become president?

Regardless, Amy, I think we can find some common ground with how silly "inclusive speech" is when put into practice. From the masters of "silliness", check out this clip to illustrate my point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgp9MPLEAqA

I agree with jman . I am more swift than she . As for left field . Back then there
were more private per capita than today . again the PDLS view is half thought out .
Keep thinking , you might be able to excel , well campared to other PDLS's anyway .

I'd say that number is well over half,Amy! I know you only consider conservative
values to be American values but from what I see from them they are as anti
American as they can be. Conservatives don't want lower taxes to create a more
responsible government,they want more cash in their own pockets. Otherwise
they would work to create a more responsible government first and then lower
taxes.
I really laugh hard at anyone claiming their political party is the righteous fighting
evil.

Amy,

- So sorry to be off topic today. I don't expect you to approve my comment. But since I didn’t have time to blog and was on a well needed vacation I was hoping to respond to jmann99's post back at me a few weeks ago. I will never bring this up again. No matter how much he and others complain.

I am not Jim H. Jim, Amy, and those who manage this blog know that I am MarieR. Before I posted my very first comment at this site I emailed all letting them know who I am and asked that they make sure I am not singled out with the foul language that flies around these blogs. Yes Jman99, your little boy antics and your foul mouth is what I was talking about. Along with your little buddies who follow your lead. If so I would quit on the spot. I am a single mom. No one writes or posts my comments or letters except me.


Have a nice day. Thank you Amy

"Yes Jman99, your little boy antics and your foul mouth is what I was talking about."


Please provide specific examples.

WFB, the key benefit I've always understood to be gained from a liberal arts education is experience in critical thinking and assessing things from multiple angles. These are skills for life, not the workplace.

The working world also makes use of these skills, as the ability to understand an argument is needed any time people might disagree. When you work with those from another social group, you need to understand your biases so you can effectively communicate with those who don't share them. I hope I misunderstand your argument, but to say it's not helpful to understand the viewpoints of someone without power because they won't be signing your paychecks is to throw them out of the economy. The boss who can't speak to minority groups without offending them is the boss who can't hire minority groups. Especially if the leaders of other companies can. Also, the sales or support staff that can't speak to groups out of power is the staff that can't do business with anyone else.

In short, the working world isn't the only point of a college education. And recognizing the views of those without power isn't harmful to the long-term viability of a worker or a company. Although I agree that it can hurt for a while if someone doesn't have thick enough skin to deal with those who disagree. Which I guess means I should just point to Mucho's arguments earlier in the comments.

Truth is the only racism here is that of those that feel it is racist to ask students to
beyond the current mainstream. The professor is not suggesting that the students
are racist in any way,only that the mentioned parameters (the "norms") of society
be substituted with a view the student would have to stop and consider instead of
simply react to without considering altering points of view.

Kinda just explained why conservatives have a problem with the exercise;P

Perhaps if Gov. Offshore Romney's campaign advisers had taken this course, the election results might have been different.

wait you say that students were asked . Yet all I saw were some students were told
! While others did nothing different !! Lets just ask minorities to only be at others
beckon call . Would that seem racist ? Yet somehow assuming that only white men
should do somthing the others do not do . Somehow racism is gone then huh? lol...

Ref33...may I prove how you and so many others are clueless why you voted for Obama except that you were told to by your need for liberalism? Your comment," Perhaps if Gov. Offshore Romney's campaign advisers had taken this course, the election results might have been different.”

Obama has sent more jobs offshore than any pres. Ever. Maybe even more than is pal at GE.

Hayett - You're off topic. This blog is not about off-shoring jobs, it's about a course where a professor wants her students to break away from their "inherent prejudices". My calling Willard Romney, "offshore" is a direct result of the writer of this blog refusing to stop her continued disrespect of President Obama by calling him "President Kardashian". Any comments I make that refer to Willard Romney, I will call him "Offshore Romney".

Ref...for whatever reason, YOU brought it up. I just pointed out how wrong you were again and what little knowledge you have of the guy you put back in the White House.

Hayett - What exactly did I bring up? My comment merely pointed out that if Willard "Offshore" Romney's advisers had put aside their narrow focus on which electorate they concentrated on, the election results might have been different. As I understand your occupation as a financial adviser, you give advice to people as to where they should invest their money. Do you tailor that advice to each individual based partly on their ethnicity, gender etc, or is your advice strictly cookie cutter from your white male perspective? Think outside the box is a phrase we've all heard. That's what this professor was trying have her students do in her class, nothing more.

OK Ref33...I will play your game.

If "Offshore" Obama had some honesty and some knowledge of American history in those socialist bones of his, the election would have been much different. Or if libs like you educated yourself about our economy, jobs, finances, etc., we wouldn't be in this mess.

ps...my comment and my facts have nothing to do with race or gender. It's called common sense. And it's not very common any more with our liberal teachers and the many like you who have no clue about the person you put back in the WH.

Gdumbya...you are so correct in your claim that entitlement seekers will win again. That’s why you have no clue of the damage you do and did by voting in Obama and many of the dems you voted in as well. You have no clue to the harm you cause for so many Americans. You included.

Obama and most democrats want to keep themselves between those 47% and the economy. Sadly, you have no idea why. Romney, as do most conservatives and Republicans, want that 47% engaged in the economy. Now tell us oh wise one as to which is better. Getting a job and getting engaged in the economy and our free markets? Or stay on food stamps, welfare, and free cell phones while standing in line for more handouts and unemployment checks?

"ps...my comment and my facts have nothing to do with race or gender. "

What "facts"?

Dumbya...Obama got your tongue? jmann, help out your brother here.

Jmann…facts? That you have no clue why you voted for Obama or the damage he has done to our economy and will do going forward.

Jmann…need more? How about the fact that this professor has zero common sense or any clue as to how to educate her students outside her own racism and political agendas and ideologies. Not what those students or their parents bargained and paid for I would imagine.

Jim explain how this class exercise is racist.

Those are not facts Hayett; they are you prejudices.

Until you actually talk with the prof. that's all you have, just your prejudices and your rantings.

That you rant is a fact, what you rant about isn't factual.

You see the difference.

Well, maybe not.

It is racist to tell others to do something differently based on skin color !!!! Which
makes most PDLS's major racists !!

Jman... what you and I recognize as prejudices or speculation appears to be
perceived as reality to right-wing conservatives. Whose motto appears to be; if I
can imagine it then it must be true.

This blog is evidence of the degree of speculation rampant among those on the
right.
What is most telling is what is missing from Mr. Lovelace's article.

Like an interview with the teacher he is criticizing. Typical of a conservative to
criticize someone while denying their target a voice.

If there is a racist in this article I would have to say that it is Mr.lovelace himself
since he described the teacher using color and gender. Why not carry on the
pattern by identifying the color and gender of the people he did interview as
well?

Carl...think for yourself for just a minute and you will have the answer. Or, read what WFB res just posted.

After a busy day and then tuning in to watch the Badger game, I checked out the comments on this post at half time. None were on topic. All were personal attacks. Jman99 seems to have nothing better to do then try to attack a former blogger to livinglakecountry.com. What a sad life he/she must lead. I cannot imagine how someone sits around all day and just posts attacks aimed at a former blogger. Don't you have anything - just anything? - better to do with your time? Grow up. Such comments will not stay up for long, and eventually I will grow tired of your garbage and disallow you to post on my site. (Jman99 - your days are numbered if you don't clean up your act.)
Instead of spending your days/evenings posting nasty comments aimed at a former blogger, why not try watching the Badger game? The second half has just started - with a touchdown right off the bat by Monte Ball! Exciting - another Rose Bowl game on the horizon! Enjoy! Stop the nastiness and have a good evening.

LOL Comment moment (provided by ExToDResident):

ExToDR states: "Like an interview with the teacher he is criticizing. Typical of a conservative to criticize someone while denying their target a voice."

Typical of a conservative??? Egads. Let's start with what happened prior to the "recall Walker" election, in which mobs of union thugs followed Walker everywhere he went and attempted to shout him down whenever he tried to speak. (Does the opening ceremony of the State Fair ring a bell?).
What about all idiots camping out in the Capitol and distrupting the daily legislative processes for months on end?
Somehow, I don't believe the folks engaged in "shouting down" the opposition were conservatives...

And on the national scene, Obama was famous for making up garbage about Mitt Romney that his fan club (the mainstream media) dutifully reported day after day, with no thought to checking out the thruth. Think Romney was given much of a "voice" by the media to defend himself against the lies put forth by the Dems? No - cuz Obama had - and has - the press in his back pocket.

"Typical of conservatives!!!" What hogwash, Ex.

Amy...great game!!! Rose Bowl here we come!

Sorry to ruin your day jmanmark, but I was never ever reprimanded or asked to leave. Not once. In fact, the "higher-ups" actually tried to talk me out from leaving. The only ones who have been asked to leave, or forced to leave, were all liberal democrats. Says a lot about people like you and your pals, hey jmann?

"What hogwash, Ex."

Funny that is usually my first thought when I read your blog.