Salon has an article entitled "
Three white college students file racial discrimination complaint against professor over lesson on structural racism" which contains a video interview with the professor involved, the head of the "diversity department" but curiously not any of the three students involved.
First and foremost; regardless as to what position one holds on the incident, if one is going to present a video report on the subject one should at least ask one of the mentioned parties for comment. If anything the absence of commentary from the students involved only serves to underline their contention that they are being singled out for discrimination.
Lets start with the allegation:
A black female professor at Minneapolis Community and Technical College was formally reprimanded by school officials after three of her white male students were upset by a lesson she taught on structural racism.
Shannon Gibney says that the students reacted in a hostile manner to the lesson in her Introduction to Mass Communication class, with one of them asking her, “Why do we have to talk about this in every class? Why do we have to talk about this?”
Gibney says that, after this initial comment, another white male student said, “Yeah, I don’t get this either. It’s like people are trying to say that white men are always the villains, the bad guys. Why do we have to say this?” These students continued to argue and disrupt the lesson until Gibney told them that if they were troubled by her handling of the subject, they could file an official complaint with the school’s legal affairs department.
I was not a communications major when I was attending university so I do not know what subject matter is covered in an Intro to Mass Communication class but I would seriously ask, on academic relevancy grounds what a lesson on "structural racism" has to do with Intro to Mass Communication. Not that there are no academic ground to cover such a subject but is an Intro to Mass Communication the place for such a topic? The other question in regards to that subject would be has or had the professor covered other "discriminatory structures" in Mass Media (misandry comes immediately to mind). Secondly by the statements made by the students and the words of the professor herself, it would appear that the entire subject matter was the negative representation of white heterosexual males. One could ask "what is wrong with that?" and the answer would be that if one is talking about racism and racist attitudes and actions in "Mass Media" that only made the "bad guys" out to be white males, then one is not only covering up group acts of racism (remember that racism is
actually a set of beliefs and attitudes in regard to race, any race that are not necessarily negative or positive). Therefore the subject would have to cover similar attitudes, if any, present in other groups. For example the lack of black people in much "Hispanic" mass media even though there are a great deal of black Hispanics. Or the general absence of dark skinned Indians in their media outlets, advertising, etc. Particularly in regard to women. Are these not "structural racisms" that do not involve white heterosexual males?
Moving on. When you watch the video and see Gibney's commentary you find some very typical, shall we say entitlement and hysteria common among female liberal faculty members:
1) She said she is scared. No seriously. What is with liberal "feminist" women and their apparent lack of emotional control? Just about every time I see a liberal women get challenged on something she says, there are comments about not feeling safe and the so called intimidation they are feeling. It is as if everyone is obliged to walk on eggshells lest these delicate "damseling" women catch fright. Gibney should be put under a psychiatrists care if she is scared to be in a class of students willing to ask questions and not simply take what is said as canon. Isn't that what these institutions of higher learning are supposed to be about anyway?
2) She's complaining about her authority taken away (or challenged). Well yeah. Students can actually do that, provided they are respectful. I'll say this as someone who regularly challenged my teachers in college, including reporting one to a dean; If I feel that I am being picked on based on my race or gender, I will do something quite similar to these 3 fellows. It is a GREAT thing that I did not have to sit in a gender class for graduation. Based on what I have been seeing, I would have certainly gotten into it with not a few faculty members over the blatant bullshit passed off as sound academics. Here's the deal: If you don't want to be challenged in class, make sure your shit is tight. That means checking your material against that which opposes it. I know this is hard for some people to understand, but as an academic you have an
obligation to look into opposing viewpoints and data AND to present that to the students so long as that data is credible. If you don't expect to be challenged.
3) She handled the situation all wrong: In my view this is partly why she is being reprimanded. As a teacher and someone who is supposed to be facilitating the development of critical thinking skills she was very dismissive of the students concerns (most likely because being white, male and presumably heterosexual, they have no say. No really, there are so called feminists who believe that men have absolutely no right to opine on various subjects). Instead of inviting the students to lodge a complaint she
should have taken the opportunity to provide them with an assignment to air their view on the subject of "Structural Racism in Mass Media". This was a perfect learning opportunity for the entire class. Since the original complaint stemmed from a student presentation(s) (as claimed by Gibney) let these students present their case in an equal setting and be subject to the same challenges they wished to impose on others. I will lay down $1000 that had Gibney done this rather than take offense at "challenges to her authority" she would not have been reprimanded AND she would have gained the grudging respect of the students who disagreed with her, because at least she was
open to opposing views. She also would not have opened the school to a lawsuit.
4) If Gibney is so concerned about intimidating white males why is she teaching there? If Gibney is so concerned about the performance of "students of color" and has issues being confronted by white male heterosexual students, why doesn't she teach at an HBCU? No really? I have been asked to "teach" (that is really funny) at a HBWC and I have flat out refused because I don't do challenges like that. As a Garveyite I concern myself with the education of the African as my primary mission. I'm not here to educate other folks. So I sensibly stay away from the profession. I WOULD be so inclined at an HBCU. Perhaps Gibney would be better off teaching at say Spellman. There she could teach without being bothered with intimidating males at all.
5) Why do black (alleged feminists) keep letting white women off the hook? Really? Why? Gibson blatantly states that the "structured racism" is the sole creation and operation of white [heterosexual] males as if white women were not and are not supportive and benefiting from the same system. Like they didn't raise the kids, make the false accusations, and request the handmaidens (among other things). No seriously, why do black folks (particularly of feminist stripes) continue to give white women the oppressor pass? It's like they forget those women are white as well until they do something that upsets black feminists who then throw a fit about racism in white feminism. Well duh…welcome to the "structural racism" ladies.
6) Lastly there is the issue of folks thinking they can get away with commentary that is discriminatory in nature when it is directed at White [heterosexual] males. This particular poison is the result of the government's creation of "protected classes" of people. Of course it was started with the noble intention of protecting black people from discrimination but it has since been expanded and diluted to the point that if one is not a white [heterosexual] male, then one is a protected class. This is silly and it has dangerous consequences. It may seem odd for a Garveyite to be seen as "protecting" white males. However; upon further examination you will see that it is not so strange. One thing I have noticed from the flip dismissal of commentary or concerns of white males most recently by feminists is that it has crept into flip dismissals of black males (see so called Black Male Privilege) by so called black feminists. Often in many so called progressive conversation, "white" is stripped from male and conversations devolve down into supposed evils of heterosexual males as a group. At that point, as a heterosexual male it becomes my business and my concern. This brings us to
article number two:
Nancy Silberkleit is accused by her male employees of gender discrimination such as referring to them as 'penis' instead of by name
Yeah you read right. But that was not the worst of what she did. Not satisfied with engaging in behavior that would have gotten a male worker fired and make headlines across twitter,
Nancy's legal team whips out the big gun:
In papers filed in Westchester Supreme Court, Nancy Silberkleit's lawyer says a gender discrimination lawsuit filed against her earlier this year by a group of Archie Comics employees should be tossed in part because white guys aren’t members of “a protected class.”
So in essence, Nancy is free to be sexist towards men, heterosexual men, white heterosexual men, because the government doesn't protect their rights. Not because they have no rights. Does this sound familiar? No? Sounds a lot like the Dred Scott decision doesn't it? For those unfamiliar with that case, the judge in that case declared that black people in general have no rights that any white male (or female for that matter) were bound to respect. How is that any different than this lawyer's contention that the white heterosexual male cannot have his day in court because basically he has no rights that the government (or anybody in a so called protected class) are bound to respect?
I believe it was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. who pointed out that when the rights of one group are trampled on, we are all damaged. See how low feminism has stooped? It begins with an idea and grows into a gross legal framework that threatens everybody.
Mind you I understand that lawyers need to do whatever they legally can to defend their client but I would hope that the judge in this case tosses that entire argument out as it clearly fails the 14th Amendment case. Protected classes are protected
from discrimination and
not from
being discriminatory. How that doesn't fall afoul of the 14th Amendment is beyond me. But I assure you that this policy, the entire concept of "protected classes" is going to get blown up due to this kind of behavior.
And in complete disregard for what gender discrimination is:
And Silberkleit's lawyer, Thomas Brown, said the employees' allegations don't even rise to the level of gender discrimination. "It's absurd," he said
Essentially they are claiming that even
if the behavior in question happened, it isn't discriminatory. Imagine that! Imagine a male supervisor referring to his female subordinates as vagina. like "go see the vagina at the front desk." Yeah, such a claim of "not discriminatory" would generate many many laughs and meme's across the internet.
This takes us back to Gibney's class. She's fortunate that the students in question did not have the information I have at the tip of my tongue because a reprimand would have been the least of her worries. See the problem Gibney has is that she thinks she's entitled to say whatever it is she says and that somehow her degree places her beyond critique. Matter of fact a lot of black people walk around with a sense of entitlement. Gibney didn't even acknowledge the concerns of the students. They were simply labelled "angry white heterosexual males" and told to be quiet. Yeah, I'm familiar with that kind of attitude as a BLACK male so I can sympathize. Black folks think that they alone can discuss and
discuss correctly matters of racism. That simply is not the case. While we may have the best experiences on the receiving end we also make mistakes in discussing it (since we are fallible humans) and have our own blind spots on the matter. Futhermore, as is evidenced from this blog, not all of us ascribe to the same overall themes of racism. For example, I freely point out the White Supremacy System and Culture as described by Garvey(s) and Welsing, but many of my compatriots do not ascribe. I personally think I have a far better documented case for my position than they do, but I leave that to the readers. What is worse though are academics who think somehow a PhD means they cannot be wrong or questioned by anyone much less someone far less degreed (or has qualifications in other fields of study).
What Gibney and others of her ilk will soon learn is that they no longer have the monopoly on information in regards to issues of race and gender. The world wide web has thrown open the doors of information that previously was locked away in libraries and journals. Stuff like the very very bad violent crime rates among African-Americans are no longer hidden as they are all over YouTube and reported on by individuals with blogs. Blatantly racist (some would say "compensatory justice") knockout games and polar bear hunting deals deadly blows to the common concept of racist violence as the sole domain of whites as perpetrators. The anti heterosexual male attitudes that permeates the feminist sphere are being well documented for those who look for it. And while the mass media of Gibney's class may still hold sway over the public, these things are reaching out. If black academics wish to keep their heads above water, whether it be in matters of race or gender, they better get their acts together and get more, shall we say, mathematical with their analyses. A lot of what is out there is heavy on academic jargon (watch the video) and low on verifiable data. Current verifiable data.
