Oregon State University To Force Incoming Students to Take "Social Justice Training"

[Crissi]

Some people take it seriously.

That's true of anything. It's still more likely most students will laugh at how stupid it is.

[boyzma]

I'm really curious as to what/who the link OP posted. I live in Oregon...about 60 miles from Eugene and OSU. Seems like we'd be the first to hear about something like this, but yet not a word...nothing on local news stations or radio...nothing in the Eugene newspaper. Sure this isn't just someones "this is what I want" article and not the actual truth?

[BuckSparkles]

That's true of anything. It's still more likely most students will laugh at how stupid it is.

I have no faith in this generation.

[Deleted]

Feel free to give me one single valid reason to introduce a candidate's race, ethnicity, gender, or religion when hiring for, say, a paralegal position (to make it a relatively neutral position).

But we're not hiring here. We're posting on a forum, it's not irrelevant to bring up that you're refering to a specific group which exhibits the behaviour. There's no need to cut away everything in a forum, especially not when you talk about issues that are prevalent in a specific group.

[Endus]

But we're not hiring here. We're posting on a forum,

Where we were discussing hiring, a moment ago. You're moving goalposts.

it's not irrelevant to bring up that you're refering to a specific group which exhibits the behaviour.

Yes. It is. What you're describing is the definition of prejudice. You're judging someone before you can evaluate them individually over a characteristic they share with other individuals. That's prejudice. Unless that individual exhibits any such behaviour, you can't deny them over that.

Again, it's no different than refusing to hire a black person because "blacks are criminals", or refusing to hire a woman because "she'll just go off on maternity leave all the time".

[Deleted]

Where we were discussing hiring, a moment ago. You're moving goalposts.



Yes. It is. What you're describing is the definition of prejudice. You're judging someone before you can evaluate them individually over a characteristic they share with other individuals. That's prejudice. Unless that individual exhibits any such behaviour, you can't deny them over that.

We were discussing peopel being granted damages because they're discriminating against women, not hiring practices.

[Deleted]

Change is the only constant. Social justice is derived from historically oppressed minorities fighting against the flow of mainstream culture; a constant struggle. You are advocating a position that would revert all progress and dialogue from opposing and differing viewpoints in society to when there was only one overarching norm, white protestant, all other ideas and mores were subservient to this mainstream.

If you want to restrict the growth of the expression of ideas and debate in a free western society, go ahead, just don't call yourself anything but a regressive living in denial.

Name ONE right that white people have that coloured people dont.
Pro tip: you can't

[RickJamesLich]

"You are oppressed by Rich people and white people. Resent them, for they have it easier than you ever will.

By the way, stop by financial aid. They want to give you more scholarships and grants and a free ride because you are a black lesbian muslim."

Yeah it's just really weird seeing what's happening to colleges in America, they are rapidly losing credibility and in many cases it appears people become less educated by attending them lol. It almost appears that liberal dream of high school graduates being competitive with college graduates is going to become true, albeit for reasons much different than they intended.

[Endus]

We were discussing peopel being granted damages because they're discriminating against women, not hiring practices.

We've had people calling people or companies racist, for not wanting muslims working for them

You're the one who started talking about hiring practices. Now you're trying to move those goalposts.

[Deleted]

You're the one who started talking about hiring practices. Now you're trying to move those goalposts.

I'm not trying to move any goalposts, it's you who misinterpreted this whole thing, you brought hiring practices into it, I was just talking about companies not wanting muslims who won't shake hands with women working for them, that can be achieved either through not hiring those muslims who do that(But how would they know beforehand?) or firing those who do after it comes to their attention. You can be fired when they no longer want you working there due to your behaviour, you know. There's plenty of those cases around here where muslims who refuse to shake hands have been granted damages after that, for discrimination.

Take the whole ordeal with Yasri Khan, nobody knew about him not wanting to shake hands with women until he actually refused to do it, after which he had to go. Yet there's people claiming discrimination. At least he wasn't working for company, so he can't exactly claim damages when people wanted him gone.

Nobody would refuse to hire muslims straight off the bat just like that, because that will go bad in court. What shouldn't be happening is that they have a muslim working for them, whom they didn't know wouldn't shake hands with women(Because, who the hell asks that in an interview?) and then he refuses to do so and is subsequently fired, what shouldn't happen here is him being able to sue for discrimination.

[Deleted]

Who the fuck are you to judge what someone is traumatized or is offended by? What is it with you and other conservative posters on this forum that you want to continually moralize and determine something that is "deserving" or not. It isn't your life, and a society constructed in which the way you think and believe would be more in line with Pakistan than any western country.

How is reporting = to silencing? The person who is accused can also petition, and voila, a debate arises, and meaningful dialogues form for better communication and understanding, you know, productive insights into ideas and norms that are different from your own viewpoints.

I'm traumatized and offended by this post. please stop. It's triggering.

fucking seriously though, someone writing trump for president on a chalk board is considered something to be traumatized for now. It's not like someone wrote ''all blacks deserve to die'' followed by how harsh they should be killed, into excplicit detail. That could be considered traumatizing, sure.

But saying that someone ssupports trump.. give me a break.

[Belize]

Wasn't there someone who said we could just ignore it because it wasn't mandatory, like religion classes?

I need to dig through my replies to find who...

OT: What a useless waste of money. U.S. colleges are already expensive enough, we don't need to force people to pay and take useless drivel.

[Kathandira]

Nothing wrong with saying grow thicker skin. Some people do. Especially all these snowflakes in colleges promoting harmful authoritarian thinking.

"Report anybody who hurts your feelings so they get punished. That will show them."

I agree with you. Universities should be a place for conversation and debate and learning. Not a place where you can silence people having an opposing opinion.

[Katchii]

I agree with you. Universities should be a place for conversation and debate and learning. Not a place where you can silence people having an opposing opinion.

So much this. And it seems like they're turning into a place almost exactly the opposite.

[Shibito]

These colleges brainwash at a rate charles manson did.

[Kathandira]

Name ONE right that white people have that coloured people don't.
Pro tip: you can't

This is a problem, people seem to misunderstand what 'Rights' are. My g/f and I were having a debate about feminism and SJ and PCness and Women's Rights was brought up. I asked her simply, "Name of constitutional right that men have, that women do not." It was suddenly silence. Women's Rights have already been fought for and won, we are equal in the eyes of the law.

I believe both Feminism in first world countries, and Women's Rights in first world countries needs to be renamed and redefined.

[Nynax]

what shouldn't happen here is him being able to sue for discrimination.

Don't forget that you CAN literally sue over any offense, justing filing the paperwork is sueing. The difference is whether or not a judge actually takes it up and turns it into a case, or dismisses it out of hand.

[Deleted]

Don't forget that you CAN literally sue over any offense, justing filing the paperwork is sueing. The difference is whether or not a judge actually takes it up and turns it into a case, or dismisses it out of hand.

Well, when I say that they "can sue", it specifically refers to that they can sue and win, in almost every case where they sue for "discrimination against their religious beliefs" they win, it's out of control. Goes through this when you sue for discrimination: http://www.do.se/other-languages/english-engelska/, and they win most cases. It's completely retarded that their own discriminative behaviour is protected in the law, which makes it impossible to fire them without risking being convicted in court for discrimination against their religious beliefs.

[Nynax]

This is a problem, people seem to misunderstand what 'Rights' are. My g/f and I were having a debate about feminism and SJ and PCness and Women's Rights was brought up. I asked her simply, "Name of constitutional right that men have, that women do not." It was suddenly silence. Women's Rights have already been fought for and won, we are equal in the eyes of the law.

I believe both Feminism in first world countries, and Women's Rights in first world countries needs to be renamed and redefined.

I think this point really speaks to why the debates are so heated now. Because continuing to pursue a legislative action to further women's and minority rights, must mean that they get preferential treatment, esp after the gay marriage ruling, which is what the fight over Affirmative Action is about.

And the fight is so heated because right's groups rarely use a language referencing equality for all, instead using a language that is more like "equality' for us."

[Deleted]

This is a problem, people seem to misunderstand what 'Rights' are. My g/f and I were having a debate about feminism and SJ and PCness and Women's Rights was brought up. I asked her simply, "Name of constitutional right that men have, that women do not." It was suddenly silence. Women's Rights have already been fought for and won, we are equal in the eyes of the law.

I believe both Feminism in first world countries, and Women's Rights in first world countries needs to be renamed and redefined.

Yeah.. well personally I just want it to be human rights egalitarian, or (insert name here). There are certain smaller issues in where the pendulum swings in favour of men and other times where it swings in favour of women. But nothing major that really needs that much focus in all honesty.