Argue Here, Not on the Results Page

[Minnesotan]

Okay, to all the people who are arguing on the results page (i.e. the University of Minnesota PoliSci "discrimination" debate), please move your argument here. If stupidity such as this need occur, I would rather it happened in a moderated forum than on a results page that is supposed to be helpful to people for years to come.

Imagine, for instance, what someone is going to have to weed through if they want information on Brown's Business MA program. 90% of the comments are about being rich, owning us other "fools" in the humanities, being "serviced" by members of the opposite sex, and various references to "pimping" - "big" or otherwise.

Maybe it'll do us all some good to vent some aggression. Just remember, I am supposed to be a responsible moderator and member of this community, so don't abuse this forum for adult debate by turning it into a place for personal attacks.

So we're clear, personal attacks and blatantly racist, sexist, theist (basically anything ending in an "ist") language will be deleted. And, yes, white males can be the victims of racism/sexism, too (sorry - someone made a disturbing comment to the contrary in the results yesterday). I am an equal opportunity comment deleter! =)

Adult debate of these themes is fine, though.

[Minnesotan]

This goes double for the Paris Economics retards.

[moneke]

I've got a simple solution to this problem. Just don't post the notes on the results page. Instead include a link or roll-over popup that can be selected to view the notes for a particular result if you are interested. People only want to look at the notes for programs they are interested in anyway. And this will get rid of the temptation to turn the page into a forum for public back and forth conversation -- take away their public soapbox and most of the people doing this will cease doing it.

btw, the notion that white males can be subject to racism/sexism is not a given... There are legitimate debates as to the definition of racism and some people view it as a social phenomenon that is not only about prejudice but also about power of one group over another. Therefore, with that view you might be prejudiced or discriminated against as a white male but you are not subject to racism per se because of the way group power dynamics exist in our society.

[Minnesotan]

I'm just a mod - I have no power over what goes on in the results page. I am just sick of seeing talk of space ships and orgies where information about funding and the like should go.

As for the semantics of racism/sexism, you can claim that they are inherently tied to power, but you are not addressing the fact that claiming someone cannot be discriminated against is fundamentally discriminatory. So, mince words all you like - not all situations in life see a white male having the power. In those cases where they don't, it becomes obvious how flawed your relativist argument is.

You can't have it both ways, and people who argue as such are merely seeking special treatment or redress. Well, equality is great - and I'm sure everyone can agree on that point - but vengeance is another story. And promoting the interests of one race or gender over another, regardless which race or gender, is racist/sexist.

Affirmative Action, for instance, discriminates against able-bodied white males because their forefathers had certain advantages in the past. Well, what happens when all those people who had the advantages are out of the workforce, and the white males who are now seeking jobs all grew up in an environment of mandated equality (or discrimination allowed only against the "majority" population)? I know I've been passed over for a job for which I was qualified because of my race (what they call white - an inaccurate description of my color, let alone my race), and I sure as hell never had an advantage over women or "minorities." Basically, we're punishing people for the perceived sins of their fathers, even when their descendants didn't own slaves. Nonetheless, 'we all look alike,' so everyone with light skin gets lumped together, so we can all be punished for the misdeeds of a small minority of our population.

What we see here is that I am being discriminated against because of the actions of some historical figures who have no relation to me whatsoever. Sounds fair.

But this is just an example. Why throw out the entire "whate men are evil and deserve to suffer" argument based on silly things like practical examples, facts, or figures. What really matters is how we define words like racism, power, and equality, right?

Pfft!

Everyone thinks they deserve special treatment in the ivory tower. Well, let me tell you something: you're more than likely not special. The sooner we all get that into our heads, the better off we are.

[anthroapp]

Wow - normally, I'm not too bothered to reply to such posts, but I'd hate for that to be the last word on this debate. It's amazing to see how notions of victimization have been distorted. Before I address the issues, for the sake of disclosure, I'm Asian female.

First, to suggest that affirmative action is some kind of "vengenance" grossly misreppresents the issue. A simple look at statistics will show that "equality" as Minnesotan attempts to define it is more a fantasy than a reality. This isn't a matter of descendants of one community/gender taking revenge on another; it's to look at the how certain dynamics perpetuate social conditions. To claim that the playing field is even less than 50 years after the Civil Rights movement and less than a century after women's suffrage, underestimates the extent to which American society continues to favor "white males". Removing affirmative action doesn't suddenly mean that everyone is equal, it simply means that women and minorities who are more likely to be (and still are) discriminated against, will continue to be discriminated against. The last time I checked, "white men" still dominated government, business and academia, and we're still amazed that a woman or an African American could possibly be elected President.

[Minnesotan]

But you're missing a distinction between power and the perception of power. Why do you think a woman has never been president, despite the fact that the majority of potential voters in the U.S. are female? If there was an issue where actual power was involved, rather than perceptions of power, I would understand government involvement. But when government steps in to alter perceptions (i.e. tell someone how to think), we are crossing into a George Orwell novel. Let's keep Newspeak out of America, if possible. =)

As for equality "as I attempt to define it," you're right. I am a stoic, no-shit, off the cuff Minnesotan farmboy who looks to the bottom line whenever possible. The bottom line here? There is only one group of people in America against whom the government mandates discrimination: the able-bodied white male. You can talk about 'how we define things' and 'power dynamics' all you want, but all that is meaningless in the face of cold, hard government action. Show me an active, enforced law that discriminates against Asian-American women and I'll happily recant and rush out to be the first in line to join the bark-burned dynamics discussion group and organic knitting club. Until then, all you have is theory ignoring reality.

Oh, and the white male dominance of academia is an absurd suggestion! Business and politics I'll grudgingly admit, but academia? Check those enrollment numbers again, sister. =)

And the number of departments, offices, scholarships, and campus resources devoted to women, and non-white racial or ethnic groups. The outrage in academia when those Michigan kids started a token scholarship for whites is evidence enough of the hostile climate white males have to endure at university (not to mention the vicious womens' studies majors, heh).

Anyway, and so this is clear since we're communicating over the inmpersonalnet, while my argument is heartfelt, it is also made in the spirit of friendly debate. I would hate people to mistake my straightforward manner for rudeness.

***edit: I hate typos!***

[trendytotebag]

There is only one group of people in America against whom the government mandates discrimination: the able-bodied white male.

And homosexuals. Don't forget the homosexuals.

[Minnesotan]

OMG! You're right. I stand correted on that score.

Another utterly ridiculous area of government interference! Soon there's going to be an official Department of National Morality to let us all know who deserves what, what we can think, who we can employ, and how many hours each day we're expected to worship the one and only xian god. =(

They already censor the radio waves, why not our brain waves, too?