Ban "social justice" in education?

[Belize]

That's not what either of those concepts mean.

White supremacy isn't about keeping non-whites out of powerful positions?

Patriarchy is not about having all males in powerful positions?

You might want to hit up a dictionary.

[Bapestar]

The right always preaches about freedom of speech, and censorship is bad, but is all for this.

[NineSpine]

Of course you can, your ideology makes claims and those claims can be verified.
For instance, SJWs claim that we have a rape culture in the west, in this case they claim that rape is not taking serious in our society and that it is rampant in our culture. All those claims can be shown false.

Some do, some don't. Social justice doesn't necessitate that belief. Social justice can be as simple as "I believe in freedom of thought". It can be as simple as "I support Social Security". I can be "I believe the bill of rights is a good way to limit government."

The mistake you've made is taking certain contentious outgrowths of social justice, and applying them to the concept in it's entirety. It's about as valid as me saying conservatives love slavery because conservative arguments for slavery exist.

[Fojos]

Censorship of opinions and facts you don't like, awesome!
Keep on complaining when people call you fascists

Social justice in universities is not opinions....

[NineSpine]

White supremacy isn't about keeping non-whites out of powerful positions?

Keeping people out of positions and successfully banning 100% of them from those positions aren't the same thing.

Patriarchy is not about having all males in powerful positions?

It depends which construction of patriarchy you are going to go with. The general argument within the type of patriarchy you are clearly referring to is that men simply need to hold a widely disproportionate amount of the power. My counter-argument to this is usually that formal positions of power (CEO, Senator, etc.) are not necessarily actual power when women control most consumer spending and most votes. So, I agree with you that it is wrong, but your attempt to dramatically oversimplify it is just not nearly as smart as you think it is.

You might want to hit up a dictionary.

You might want to put down the dictionary and go read some actual academic work on these topics.

[Deleted]

The Westboro baptist church isn't really what we are talking about here. When I say "extremist", I'm really using it as shorthand for "violent extremist". I could just as easily say that description sounds like a Trump supporter. It's not really constructive.

then your definition is essentially a shorthand for violent people.

I don't disagree, and the STEM issue is overblown. However, there is evidence of issues of sexism in hiring in STEM fields.

In favor of women yes.

Ignoring the still existing issues of institutionalized racism won't make them go away. That's just fundamentally silly, as is the notion that discriminatory laws are the only form of institutionalized discrimination.

But they are no longer the problem - The reason black people have it shitty is not because of racism - The average poor white kid has similar or worse prospects.
Just as poor Hispanics entering the US post CRA had a greater rise in living standards than comparable poor black people.
Its beyond clear that the current problem with black people in the US - Is black people.
Single motherhood rates, graduation rates, crime...
Whatever remaining racism is not the problem - and that part of the issue, is rapidly dying all by itself.

There's certainly a problem with privileged blacks trying to be the face of oppression, but the idea that this somehow undoes the issue of underprivileged blacks is just silly.

No their problem is largely their own choices, as well as their parents.

Second off all, it's because that's not the entirety of the ideology. Social justice includes things as benign as "We should have Social Security."

No it isn't.
Social security is economical justice, social justice is another thing.

[AndaliteBandit]

I'm sorry, but are women or people of color forbidden from holding power?

It can certainly be more difficult for them. It's harder to become successful when you're confined to the ghetto because some banks still deny mortgages based on the color of your skin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage_discrimination

[Deleted]

What specifically about gender studies? Just anything that studies gender in general?

My guess would be that it means any pseudo-scientific "studies" that exist first and foremost to spread some dumbass ideological agenda, instead of focusing on objective scientific research based on hard facts. Social studies are full of politicized bullshit, usually heavily left-leaning.

[Deleted]

It can certainly be more difficult for them. It's harder to become successful when you're confined to the ghetto because some banks still deny mortgages based on the color of your skin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage_discrimination

Yes, and if society had not made that explicitly illegal, you might have a point.

[Belize]

Keeping people out of positions and successfully banning 100% of them from those positions aren't the same thing.

Do you honestly think, that in a white supremacist society, or any supremacist society, there would be any people of color in powerful positions?

It depends which construction of patriarchy you are going to go with. The general argument within the type of patriarchy you are clearly referring to is that men simply need to hold a widely disproportionate amount of the power. My counter-argument to this is usually that formal positions of power (CEO, Senator, etc.) are not necessarily actual power when women control most consumer spending and most votes. So, I agree with you that it is wrong, but your attempt to dramatically oversimplify it is just not nearly as smart as you think it is.

Sometimes, the simplest way to put it is the best, and as you've said before, your opinions on the matter is irrelevant. But I'm glad we agreed on this

You might want to put down the dictionary and go read some actual academic work on these topics.

Would you like to provide me with these 'academic' papers, because half of them are written by the people that should be kept out of universities, and would be labeled as misogynistic propaganda, while the other half disagrees with the people that should be kept out, and agrees they should be kept out.

[AndaliteBandit]

Yes, and if society had not made that explicitly illegal, you might have a point.

You would have a point if no one ever did anything illegal.

Study Finds Disparities in Mortgages by Race
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/ny...?ex=1350187200

[Belize]

It can certainly be more difficult for them. It's harder to become successful when you're confined to the ghetto because some banks still deny mortgages based on the color of your skin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage_discrimination

And it's hard for white males to get scholarships to Unis, based on the color of their skin and their gender. Affirmative action is a double edged sword, since funds are not unlimited.

[May90]

Isn't asking to ban social justice an example of social justice?

[Asotcha]

SJC is the new buzzword like 'Casuals', it's the boogeyman that someone told you is under your bed to get you to behave a certain way. There is a big anti-PC movement on the internet because when it comes right down to it some people like being assholes and don't like it when people don't like them being an asshole. It's the pro-asshole movement.

Its gotten so stupid that people will post on these forums about how a problem was caused by SJC people and within 2 posts the cause of the problem is revealed and it has nothing to do with SJC but hey, blaming SJC for everything is the new hip thing to do.

I DARE you to read this, and then say that again with a straight face. You have no idea how fucked up this stuff can become if left unchecked--its worse then annoying scrubs whining over twitter now. This is the OP post of this thread, link following my quote thereof:

The College That Wants to Ban ‘History’ and create "College of Social Activism"

Students at Western Washington University have reached a turning point in their campus’s hxstory. (For one thing, they’re now spelling it with an X—more on that later.) Activists are demanding the creation of a new college dedicated to social justice activism, a student committee to police offensive speech, and culturally segregated living arrangements at the school, which is in Bellingham, up in the very northwest corner of the state.

Students have the right to push for robust changes to campus conditions, of course. But if administrators care about free speech at all, they will ignore these calls to create an almost cartoonishly autocratic liberal thought police on campus.

WWU’s student-activist community—the frightening-sounding Assembly for Power and Liberation—made their demands public last week. The document begins by noting that the activists crashed a Feb. 12 Board of Trustees meeting in order to demand “accountability for the violence enacted on this campus,” and were subsequently surprised that none of the trustees accepted an invitation to come to an assembly meeting to “take accountability.” Pro-tip, students: If you ruin other people’s meetings, don’t be surprised when they skip out on yours.

[...]

The most substantial of the activists’ demands is a call for a new college that would essentially train students to become social justice warriors (a term often applied derogatorily by critics of leftism that nevertheless seems appropriate here). WWU must meet the needs of this new “College of Power and Liberation” by immediately hiring 10 faculty members—subject to the approval of student-activists. Finding the money to do all this is solely the responsibility of WWU’s administration, “whose accountability to students should be expressed through their fervent advocacy for students’ needs at both the local and state levels,” according to the activists, who want an extra $50,000 to throw a kick-off party for the new college. Another $45,000 will go toward paying students to do “de-colonial work on campus,” whatever that means.

Activists have also demanded the creation of an Office for Social Transformation, which would employ 15 students—young Robespierres in training—for the purposes of monitoring “racist, anti-black, transphobic, cissexist, misogynistic, ableist, homophobic, Islamophobic, and otherwise oppressive behavior on campus.” (Anti-Semitism, one notes, is curiously omitted.) These students will be granted terrifying powers to discipline faculty members who commit microaggressions. Professors—even tenured professors—can and will be placed under investigation if they are accused of maintaining insufficiently safe spaces within their classrooms.

[...]

The third serious demand is for the creation of new residence halls geared around specific cultural identities. Students claim the goal is for people from different backgrounds to live together and make new connections. But if this were true, no new dorm arrangements would be necessary—different people living together is what happens at college by default. Reading between the lines, it sounds like student-activists actually want the opposite: They want to create residential safe spaces built around certain exclusive group identities.

The result of such arrangements would be a form of de facto cultural segregation that one might expect students would oppose if they were actual progressives. In any case, these communities will be policed by residential advisors tasked with the specific goal of creating social justice activism programs. As with the proposal for “oppression studies” in the dorms at American University, it seems like the idea is to turn the campus into a zone of liberal ideological conformity from which there is no escape.
Source: The Daily Beast

All of their demands appear insane, though as a History major I think changing the spelling of History irks me the most just because its both an insult to History and an insult to my minor, linguistics, as that isn't the etymology of the word History.

So? Social Justice College, Coming to a the Country? Good thing? Or the Start of ever more inquisitions on campus'?


Link to original thread: http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...-Activism-quot

Fortunately for society at large and the last vestiges of general common sense as an entity, this was shot out of the sky by the board--their reply is floating around in the latter pages of the thread (and I remember it being satisfying and entertaining. I'd quote it but dont have the patience today to hunt for it). The scary thing is that it was even asked for with a straight face and had supporters. Kill it before it lays eggs.

[starlord]

isnt silencing others' opinions what people who are against "social justice" always complain about?

[AndaliteBandit]

And it's hard for white males to get scholarships to Unis, based on the color of their skin and their gender. Affirmative action is a double edged sword, since funds are not unlimited.

Yeah, but those white males still get to take spots from more qualified Asian applicants, so they're certainly benefiting from the system as well.

[NineSpine]

then your definition is essentially a shorthand for violent people.

No, it isn't. Some dick that beats his kids is not an extremist. He's just a dick. If he decided to go on a mass shooting spree in support of the right to beat your kids, that's another story. It's a question of being motivated by an ideology.

In favor of women yes.

In some studies, and in others the opposite. I've found the opposing studies to have more convincing methodology. It's really here nor there, because my only argument is against your really reductive, oversimplified attitude.

But they are no longer the problem - The reason black people have it shitty is not because of racism - The average poor white kid has similar or worse prospects.

Is that why black sounding names get substantially fewer responses than white sounding names on resumes?
http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html

Is that why the race of the seller plays a huge role in whether people are willing to purchase something from someone?
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/j...dy-071910.html

Is that why poor blacks were substantially more likely to be targeted for subprime loans than poor whites?
http://www.responsiblelending.org/mo...nding-0506.pdf

Is that why minorities have much, much lower rates of mortgage loan acceptance than white people with similar credit scores?
http://www.urban.org/urban-wire/how-...rity-borrowers

Is that why black students are punished more harshly than white students for the same conduct?
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/lis...e-snapshot.pdf

Is that why people generally view black children as older and more responsible for their actions than white children?
http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/rel...p-a0035663.pdf

Is that why blacks receive longer prison sentences for the same crimes?
http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/fi..._A.pdf#page=55

Just as poor Hispanics entering the US post CRA had a greater rise in living standards than comparable poor black people.
Its beyond clear that the current problem with black people in the US - Is black people.
Single motherhood rates, graduation rates, crime...
Whatever remaining racism is not the problem - and that part of the issue, is rapidly dying all by itself.

No their problem is largely their own choices, as well as their parents.

Yeah, let's ignore the mountain of evidence to the contrary.

No it isn't.
Social security is economical justice, social justice is another thing.

And that is why you have this misunderstanding. Social justice is an extremely broad concept. Hell, the main opposition force to the creation of Social Security was ALSO called the Union of Social Justice, and was an anti-communist, catholic group. Again, your reductive nonsense is not as smart as you think it is.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, and if society had not made that explicitly illegal, you might have a point.

It's almost adorable that you think things don't happen because they are illegal.

[Damajin]

Ban it. Get the pitchforks and double barrels and drive them out of town.

[NineSpine]

Do you honestly think, that in a white supremacist society, or any supremacist society, there would be any people of color in powerful positions?



Sometimes, the simplest way to put it is the best, and as you've said before, your opinions on the matter is irrelevant. But I'm glad we agreed on this



Would you like to provide me with these 'academic' papers, because half of them are written by the people that should be kept out of universities, and would be labeled as misogynistic propaganda, while the other half disagrees with the people that should be kept out, and agrees they should be kept out.

Not really. It's outside my field, and hence why I generally stay out of it. I work on U.S.-international history, and I leave the gender history to the gender historians. What I don't do is tell them what their field is, which is what you are doing.

[Belize]

Yeah, but those white males still get to take spots from more qualified Asian applicants, so they're certainly benefiting from the system as well.

Which, does not a white dominated society make.

And whether they do get the spots from asians is debatable. At my Uni, the graduate program is 80% asian/indian. Although I'll admit it's, circumstantial evidence.