|
Post by hcpride on Nov 28, 2019 11:56:47 GMT -5
It is difficult for many as we age to live in a changing world much of which we simply do not understand. Many of the beliefs and practices from days long gone make more sense to us. Much in the present day makes some of us uncomfortable and is difficult for some to accept. White man's privilege is more a reflection of the difficulties of living as a black person in America. White people in general have had it better than Black people. I find it ironic that on this board a group of presumably white older(?) males are discussing with great certitude what it is like to be black in America and "knowledgeably" rejecting any claims that white privilege exists in our country. Next, we'll be telling expectant mothers that childbirth really isn't that painful. HA! Peace and good cheer to all. Happy Thanksgiving and GOCROSSGO. BEAT MONMOUTH. LoveHC If it is any comfort, privilege theory hasn't made great inroads outside the academy - Ms. MacDonald came in from outside the academy, questioned the prevailing orthodoxy, and the predictable (nowadays) occurred. Most folks outside academic circles think the theory is bogus, deterministic, anti-individual, generalizing beyond usefulness, and simply a pretext to justify certain university (and governmental) programs. (That is not to suggest childbirth is painless, slavery is OK, blacks know what it is like to be white, or the earth is flat.)
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Nov 28, 2019 12:25:12 GMT -5
I remember from sociology that "there are more differences among individual members of any group, than there are between groups." As an "old white male" I have been classified by some as having white (male) privilege. I know people who could be role models for that generalization. I have long worked against it. Knowledge is often the first step in overcoming potential bias. I won't be commenting on Ms MacDonald's beliefs or writing until I finish her latest book.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Nov 28, 2019 12:53:01 GMT -5
Excellent points! Don’t dispute anything you’ve said and your wife was obviously special.
And then, there is OJ. One of the “bare spots” on the painted wall.
Convince me he was more oppressed than the kids KY75 writes of. Granted, a very exceptional case but still . . . if he was white he would have gotten off, right? Oh, yeah, he did get off courtesy of high priced lawyers that most people could never afford, white, black or Latino.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Nov 28, 2019 13:11:16 GMT -5
OJ got off courtesy of a jury that was not going to convict him regardless of the overwhelming evidence against him.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Nov 28, 2019 13:25:31 GMT -5
I believe his acquittal was based on financial status and fame rather than race but that is a subjective opinion,
|
|
|
Post by moose1970 on Nov 28, 2019 17:40:08 GMT -5
I believe his acquittal was based on financial status and fame rather than race but that is a subjective opinion, the prosecution, or lack thereof, had a lot to do with the acquittal: - Marcia clark was in way over her head. her opening statement was repeatedly interrupted by objection of defense counsel that she was arguing not stating facts to be proven. judge ito correctly sustained the objections. this is basic knowledge for a trial lawyer and she was clueless.
- during jury selection when the prosecution passed on exercising challenges to remove jurors the defense attorneys broke into a mini-celebration at the defense table. they knew they had seated a jury that would never convict simpson.
- the glove- you NEVER, NEVER, NEVER conduct an untried experiment in front of a jury.
- prosecution witness mark fuhrman- nuff said!
- there is more but this is enough for now.
- the prosecution was a complete meltdown.
- the "dream team" defense attoneys tried and convicted the LAPD.
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on Nov 28, 2019 18:36:41 GMT -5
Don't discount Ito himself and the abysmal way he allowed the trial to be conducted... although the example you cite seems to be one of his few bright spots
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Nov 28, 2019 21:04:24 GMT -5
rgs - Evidently, MacDonald's argument is based on the premise that those who claim to be oppressed are not oppressed in reality because of their enrollment in college and other seemingly beneficial circumstances. Further, she claims that the students have been taught to think that they are oppressed by various institutions such ac HC & Bucknell. What do the students know about oppression? Clearly she has made the judgement on her own that these students who claim to be oppressed, in fact, are not oppressed. She asserts her opinions without any particular knowledge of the life experiences of individual students nor of their experiences in college. She rejects efforts to embrace diversity in all its wonderful shadings. Obviously MacDonald's speeches are part of the overall effort to undermine the gains made through anti-discrimination legislation and practices. They are meant to inflame passions in an effort to build momentum for her views. And, she has the perfect right to do so. Despite opinions and experiences to the contrary by many in the various minority communities (racial/ethnic minorities; members of the LGBTQ community and others) she dismisses their claims of oppression. And, she does this as a white, straight female who has not had the life experiences of many of the oppressed in our society.(cf. Laura Ingraham.) Simply, she has not walked in their moccasins. Whether knowingly and purposefully or not, she echoes the arguments which the white male power structure in our country has asserted for many years, namely whites and cis people know best about the lives of minorities because in effect you minority people are either too dumb to get it or are gaming the system. Obviously her speeches and writings are part of the overall effort by some to undermine the gains (possibly ephemeral?) made through anti-discrimination legislation and practices in our country. Neither , she nor I nor many others understand what it is to grow and live as gay or as black/Latino in a white, cis dominant culture because we have not experienced it personally directed at us. Thus, it is incumbent for me & others to listen with an open heart and try to understand the claims of the "other." Additionally, in fact I have also listened, read and have tried to understand the opposing views of MacDonald and others of her ilk, and I have concluded that they are coming from a place of Eurocentric, white supremacist beliefs whether some in her group may realize it or not. This is my opinion based on reading and hearing a lot of this stuff.Certainly, others should read, listen, learn and draw their own conclusions about her bona fides. In fact it appears that MacDonald is not open to or tolerant of the complaints or even the idea of oppression which the "others" claim. At this point in her development hers is a closed mind. She does not listen. She does not hear. She is not tolerant. She has formed her opinion as is her right. Nor, does she care to truly hear others, whatever her underlying motivation. I suspect that the invite by the Fenwick Society involved more than opening up a discussion but that her views were representative of some in the group and possibly its faculty advisor also. And, please rest assured that I am not accusing everyone in this group of overt or covert racism. I agree that the students in the spirit of free speech were correct in allowing MacDonald to speak her aberrant mind, no matter how noxious and race-based they thought her views. In the same spirit of free speech, they chanted, protested then got up from their seats and walked out. Some lost their seats to the protesters. Speech may be free but it is not always easy for everybody. In any event all students have ample opportunity to read and tune in to her well publicized, widely circulated ideas. It is in this same spirit of freedom for MacDonal to deliver her speech that the students should also have the freedom tp protest, condemn, picket and demonstrate their disgust as suits them. Those who chose not to attend and protested out of disgust and fury did not get to hear her speak her mind first hand. Maybe, her prior writings and other speeches touched a raw nerve for some in her attacks on their integrity and it was too much for them to bear to attend her speech. They were well aware of her views and where she was coming from. Quite possibly, given the passions aroused by her attacks on the integrity of some students a debate or panel discussion in a wider forum should have been arranged as it might have provided a better learning experience for the students. In the 1830's deTocqueville noted that there is much clamor among people in America. I glory in my freedom to write and speak my mind and I do share with others in the same glory. I am not expecting much agreement with my views. Each of us has had our own individual life determining experiences. I am quite sure that I overwrote as I usually do. I hope I clearly expressed the views of this one poster. My wife tells me that I also talk too much. My best wishes to you and your family for a Happy Thanksgiving. To all, Peace & LoveHC m Keep typing my friend. The Evelyn Woods Speed Reading course is now available at Amazon if anyone needs a refresher. I was all in with Heather MacDonald's contention that students at a Bucknell or HC in 2019 are among the least oppressed of anyone in history. The logic resonated. Then I read your response and now have a more enlightened modified view.
|
|
|
Post by td128 on Nov 29, 2019 8:11:19 GMT -5
I appreciate and respect ALL of the comments, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this thread. I would hope and wish that our leaders on campus may try to foster an environment in which much the same could occur atop Mt. St. James. Perhaps some, much of this does transpire but then those engagements should be marketed and promoted to the broader Holy Cross community so as to set the bar and exemplify what Jesuit education means circa 2019. On the topic of the justice system, I think a point worthy of debate is to what extent the justice system is the cause or the effect within our society. I do not pretend to have the total answer to that question but I think it is worthy of debate. Within that debate, I think it is worthy to enter the following into the discussion. My son was strongly dissuaded by a professor on campus from writing a year end paper his freshman year on the topic of Impact of Single Parent Families and the explosive growth of the same over the last few generations. To wit, I welcome submitting the following: cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/135704/NFIFatherAbsenceInfoGraphic071118.pdf
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Nov 29, 2019 8:25:47 GMT -5
Thank you for that interesting link.
|
|
|
Post by purplehaze on Nov 29, 2019 14:25:25 GMT -5
today's main page on foxnews.com has an interview with Heather MacDonald to discuss what she encountered at HC, along with a video of the disruption. All very regrettable, imo.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Nov 29, 2019 14:31:44 GMT -5
It is interesting that this bad publicity for HC is what the young women who was interviewed was so proud of doing. Again, unintended consequences...bad ones, zI am afraid.
|
|
|
Post by Crucis#1 on Nov 29, 2019 15:28:44 GMT -5
Seems as if Ms MacDonald appearance at HC is now being monetizing to the next level.
Authors are constantly shilling their books. Unfortunately there are people who overly get emotional and react to her prose that are meant to cause reaction in one form or another. Fortunately the demonstration was peaceful at HC. Being cynical, I see her on the stump to increase her fees and to gain sympathy and sell her book. She very well knew that her appearance on a campus would bring out a reaction to her. She was probably delighted when students demonstrated at her talk at HC.
Wonder why she has now zeroed in on HC as a lightning rod and not the other schools she lectured. Was there resistance to her premise at Bucknell or was Holy Cross the only school that a demonstration occurred? Could it be that it is a Catholic, Jesuit school since she is an atheist? Just posting a possible motivation that again she and her publisher are strategically using and designed to draw attention to her latest book.
She is “playing” with people emotions to shill her books. Please don’t fall for her deception and trap. The only person to win will be her when she looks at her bank statement. In publishing as in any industry it is sell, sell, sell. Then keep selling until there is no juice left and the topic is either old news or debunked. Read her prose if you want to be entertained.
It’s now time for us all to focus on what is truly important. Victory in West Long Branch, which I am sure without having to do empirical research we all agree! Counting down to hopefully a vital win in less than 24 hours.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Nov 29, 2019 16:06:28 GMT -5
I don't think anyone is surprised at the student chants/disruption - I would be surprised at the lack of such conduct at a progressive institutuion.
As I noted before, it is absolutely vital (under the white privilege theory) that certain racial (and other) groups are uniformly oppressed and know that they are oppressed and that others know they are oppressed. This ongoing state of oppression is the lynchpin and justification for numerous school and governmental policies and programs.
Heather MacDonald (like so many others outside the academy) doesn't buy the privilege theory...believes and states that students at awesome places like Holy Cross are, in fact, a privileged bunch (minority, gender, sexual orientation status notwithstanding) and that explains (the otherwise nonsensical) repetitive chanting..."my oppression is not a delusion...my oppression is not a delusion...my oppression is not a delusion" and other steps to disrupt her speaking. As jarring as it might sound (to those unfamiliar with privilege theory and its implications) it is VERY important to those students that they are oppressed victims in US society and that others know and acknowledge their oppression.
At the same time, author ("The Diversity Delusion" is her latest) Ms. MacDonald is doubtlessly hoping to sell as many books as possible. The stronger and sillier (to those outside the academy) the student reaction the better. I would suggest she schedule an appearance at Berkley and then at Oberlin to further boost her sales.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Nov 29, 2019 17:08:42 GMT -5
If MacDonald had hired the students to promote her work, she could not have gotten more publicity than she got from this well-intentioned, self-important but very naive group of HC students and the method they chose to show their disagreement with her.
|
|
|
Post by Crucis#1 on Nov 29, 2019 17:15:19 GMT -5
For those that continue to criticize and bash Holy Cross at their slightest grievance about free speech on campus. Holy Cross allowed an acknowledge atheist to speak in a public forum. Last time I was on campus, Holy Cross is still a Catholic college, with the Cross being prominently displayed on buildings and in the classrooms. Just take a look at the Luth Complex at night. A true demonstration of the college’s raison d’etre.
I wonder if Ms MacDonald would be allowed to speak and be welcomed at Ave Maria University, Thomas Aquinas College, Franciscan University of Steubenville, or Catholic University of America to name several catholic colleges and universities in the United States, or non catholic Liberty University, Oral Roberts University, Bob Jones University or Hillsdale College.
It would be very interesting if instead of talking about oppression and privilege, the topic would be “Why Heather MacDonald is an atheist”. The question to be asked, what type of reception she would receive from the students, faculty and administration. Would she be politely be accepted, would there be students, faculty or members of the administration in agreement with her, or be convinced after her presentation that they now agree with her ? With that topic, would free speech be allowed or accepted?
Certainly would be an entertaining dialogue and evening to remember.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Nov 29, 2019 17:21:23 GMT -5
That might be an interesting topic...if she trusted the audience enough to share her life story in that way.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Nov 29, 2019 17:36:42 GMT -5
On what do you base your conclusion that she has "little substance"? I am afraid the same might be said of your opinion here about her substance. Neither opinion may be correct. I am starting her book. After I read what she wrote, I'll let you know if I agree with one of you.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Nov 29, 2019 17:37:52 GMT -5
It would be very interesting if instead of talking about oppression and privilege, the topic would be “Why Heather MacDonald is an atheist”. The question to be asked, what type of reception she would receive from the students, faculty and administration. Would she be politely be accepted, would there be students, faculty or members of the administration in agreement with her, or be convinced after her presentation that they now agree with her ? With that topic, would free speech be allowed or accepted? Certainly would be an entertaining dialogue and evening to remember. That is a very interesting hypothetical. One must remember that Holy Cross is Catholic and also proudly and publicly progressive. I don't believe you would see the sort of chanting and planned disruption you saw in this latest progressive episode. The topic just wouldn't trigger the progressives and it would probably be an evening of listening first and asking polite questions later.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Nov 29, 2019 17:39:22 GMT -5
...in short, HC ia Catholic progressive college where students don't invest much emotion into their faith? That is sad to hear.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Nov 29, 2019 17:41:19 GMT -5
/\ Not at all. Some students are quite serious about their particular faith...but will listen to the opinions of others on faith or lack thereof. But the progressive reaction to Ms. MacDonalds recent talk is not the sort of reaction we would see. (The 'cancel culture' president Obama recently decried is not linked to American Catholicism.)
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Nov 29, 2019 17:46:56 GMT -5
Fair enough. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Crucis#1 on Nov 29, 2019 18:08:54 GMT -5
I would give more validity to her rationale if she was a trained psychologist, psychiatrist or PHD social scientist that presented logistical, longitudinal and empirical data as the basis for her writings. Without that, her prose is merely her opinion that she is monetizing in a book which is acceptable in a free and democratic society. Maybe I should do the same.
Before any one starts casting aspersions in my direction labelling me a “pinko”, I have to disclose I was a registered Republican while at HC, and after college worked on and managed local republican candidates. I also worked at the local polls in the ‘70’s as well. Being oppressed is not a new psychological phenomenon on a college campus, it just depends on the cohort of the institution and the topic being discussed. Oppression is the dominant cohort against the less dominant cohort.
Dare I say, Crossports may have delved into this topic with a better discussion than one would find at one of her presentations. Now she is portraying herself as a victim of free speech. Gentlemen you are being played. Sounds like Dirty Tricks has been launched to sell books.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Nov 29, 2019 18:32:22 GMT -5
She must be ecstatic with all the publicity and the likely resultant increase in book sales.
As for me, I never heard of her before this situation at Holy Cross. And, no, I'm not going to buy her book nor get it out of the library.
My point was made earlier. Sweeping generalizations are almost never accurate.
|
|
|
Post by Crucis#1 on Nov 29, 2019 18:32:34 GMT -5
...in short, HC ia Catholic progressive college where students don't invest much emotion into their faith? That is sad to hear. I would ask that question to the Chaplin’s office. Of note the success of the Joyce Contemplative Center. From what I have been told the Spiritual Exercises of St Ignatius and other forms of the examination of conscience have expanded regarding their popularity. Have a discussion with them before only hearing a discussion from someone who only harkens back to mandatory chapel attendance every morning as the extent of their faith, while breaking the majority of the Ten Commandments. The investment may now be more examinations than mere acceptance from the Baltimore Catechism that we who attended Catholic grammar school in the 50’s and had it drummed into us by the good sisters without question. If we did not follow obediently, we had to suffer their outrage by holding out our hands and have retribution administered with a ruler. Ouch, my knuckles still feel the pain.
|
|