Liberals love racism, promote it at college

HarrySchell

New member
Liberals at work promoting racism.

All this time I thought they opposed racism of any kind.

Now I really understand they just oppose the "wrong" kind of racism. The "right" kind is honorable.

Lying bastards.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brave Newark World
By Mike S. Adams
Wednesday, October 31, 2007

The University of Delaware has just become one of the most Orwellian campuses in America. Students in its residence halls are now being subjected to a re-education program that is actually dubbed - in the university’s own tax-payer funded materials - as “treatment” for students who have incorrect attitudes and beliefs.

Delaware now requires nearly 7,000 students in its residence halls to adopt specific public university-approved (read: government-approved) views on issues ranging from race, to sexuality, to philosophy. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (see www.TheFire.org) is calling for the total dismantling of the program. Readers of this column should call (302-831-2111) or write president@udel.edu to Patrick Harker President of The University of Delaware asking him to do the same.

It is not at all uncommon for a university to establish official views and try to force them on students in the residence hall environment. Students living in the university housing complexes are often required to attend training sessions, floor meetings, and one-on-one meetings with their Resident Assistants (RAs).

But, at Delaware, the RA who facilitates these meetings has already received his own training, including a “diversity facilitation training” session. There, he is taught that at “[a] racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality.”

The Delaware RA is also taught that the term “reverse racism” is created by whites to deny their privilege. An official Delaware training manual says that “those in denial use the term reverse racism to refer to hostile behavior by people of color toward whites, and to affirmative action policies, which allegedly give ‘preferential treatment’ to people of color over whites.” Then, after defining the term “reverse racism” the manual claims that “there is no such thing as ‘reverse racism.’” Later, it says the non-existent term “reverse racism” is an example of “racism.”

Lewis Carroll would have been proud.

The university also suggests that during one-on-one sessions with students, the RA should ask intrusive personal questions such as the following:

“When did you discover your sexual identity?” “When was the last time you felt oppressed?” “Who was oppressing you?” “How did it feel?”

“Can you think of a time when someone was offended by what you said?” How did it make you feel?” “How do you think it made them feel?”

Students who express discomfort with the questioning often meet with disapproval from the RA, who often writes a report on the student and delivers it to a superior. One student was identified in a write-up as the “worst” one-on-one session stating that she was tired of “having diversity shoved down her throat.”

According to the university materials, the goal of residence life education is for students in the university’s residence halls to achieve certain “competencies” that include statements like: “Students will recognize that systemic oppression exists in our society,” “Students will recognize the benefits of dismantling systems of oppression,” and “Students will be able to utilize their knowledge of sustainability to change their daily habits and consumer mentality.”

In other words, the student can become competent by becoming a Marxist. Fortunately, Delaware stops short of requiring the student to wear a “Hillary 2008” t-shirt.

But that may well change soon.

Presently, students are actually pressured or even required to take actions that outwardly indicate agreement with the university’s official ideology, regardless of their beliefs as individuals. Such actions include displaying specific door decorations and committing to reduce their ecological footprint by at least 20% and fighting for “oppressed social groups.” (There is no indication that one of these groups is made up of University of Delaware residents who are oppressed by RAs who can’t stop asking “how do you feel?”).

In the Office of Residence Life’s internal materials, these programs are described using a chilling language of ideological re-education. In a manual relating to the assessment of student learning the residence hall lesson plans are actually referred to as “treatments.”

President Harker must be made aware of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943). Writing for the Court, Justice Robert H. Jackson declared, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”

There is little question that the Barnette case applies to administrators at Delaware. Anyone can see that if these officials are not high, they are certainly petty.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MikeSAdams/2007/10/31/brave_newark_world?page=full&comments=true

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington
 
Yea, had it happen to a friend of mine. Lost his TA position because of this stuff. The professor in charge used a minor paperwork screwup as justification to can him. He was then replaced with a minority female at half the price.

Aint diversity great.:barf:
 
ok

1. Depends on ones definition of "racism".

But more importantly:

2. This does not mean "liberals love racism". :rolleyes: The actions of this organization, which isn't even explicitly classified as "liberal", does not reflect on the opinions of all liberals.

Not to mention the ridiculous connection between Marxism and Hillary Clinton. :barf:

Some of the stuff that comes out of townhall.com is alright but a rant like this is just fueling the fire. It would be interesting to see just how many of these claims can actually be substantiated. If they are, they're horrible and the school should be held accountable. But the rantings of one professor do not demonize an entire political ideology.
 
I don't know but I guess I am a racist
a] racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexua

Which is kinda funny I thought I was a nice guy that treated everyone fair, and based my opinions of people on what they did. Not what they looked like.
 
Some of the stuff that comes out of townhall.com is alright but a rant like this is just fueling the fire. It would be interesting to see just how many of these claims can actually be substantiated. If they are, they're horrible and the school should be held accountable. But the rantings of one professor do not demonize an entire political ideology.

This isn't about a single professor, though. From a cursory reading, at least, it sounds more like the overall policy of their ResLife department. Which, considering this is a public school and in general (too lazy to look up for UD) incoming freshman are required to live on campus...well, it's a bit of an issue.

Of course, before I'd really start to worry I'd want to know A) how seriously this policy is taken by those expected to implement it, which is to say at the RA level and B) what kind of teeth this policy has for those that choose to essentially ignore it.

In general from what I've seen and heard most RAs really don't take such things all that seriously, and basically go through the motions to keep the higher-ups happy and try to keep their charges from drinking themselves to death. As far as teeth go, I've also gotten the impression that unless you're breaking the "big" rules (drinking underage, drugs, a few other safety/security issues) RAs have all the authority of mall cops. Less, actually.

Besides which generally at most schools the worst that can come of a ResLife violation (which most of this crap sounds like it would fall under) is eviction, not expulsion...not pleasant for somebody who actually wanted to live on-campus or was depending on it...but not the end of the world, either.

I'll re-quote the portion that was particularly relevant:

But, at Delaware, the RA who facilitates these meetings has already received his own training, including a “diversity facilitation training” session. There, he is taught that at “[a] racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality.”

The Delaware RA is also taught that the term “reverse racism” is created by whites to deny their privilege. An official Delaware training manual says that “those in denial use the term reverse racism to refer to hostile behavior by people of color toward whites, and to affirmative action policies, which allegedly give ‘preferential treatment’ to people of color over whites.” Then, after defining the term “reverse racism” the manual claims that “there is no such thing as ‘reverse racism.’” Later, it says the non-existent term “reverse racism” is an example of “racism.”

The former paragraph is pretty over-the-top, IMO. Yes, all white people are "racist." Sure. If you very narrowly define "racist," you could probably defend that assertion...but considering that the word as used in society is not so narrowly defined, and tends to be just a bit loaded, I'm going to call BS on this one.

On the second, I really have heard many, many uses of "reverse racism" that fit the description given. It's right up there with "political correctness" on the list of terms people often use when trying to defend either subtly or overtly racist positions. Regardless, it's kind of a BS term anyway...racism's racism, I see no reason to create a new term trying to distinguish one kind from another...if a minority-owned business discriminates against whites, that's racism, not "reverse racism." If a business hires minorities over whites due to affirmative action requirements, that's racism as well...it's racism being used to try and counteract the effects of other racism, but still racism.

But I'll try to avoid turning this into a (quickly locked) thread on racism, and more or less end it there. I just think "reverse racism" is a completely bogus term.
 
This isn't about a single professor, though. From a cursory reading, at least, it sounds more like the overall policy of their ResLife department. Which, considering this is a public school and in general (too lazy to look up for UD) incoming freshman are required to live on campus...well, it's a bit of an issue.
By "single professor" I was referring to the guy that wrote the article. :o
 
yeah, I'm not taking issue with the article so much as the implication in the thread title :p granted, before I pass judgement on what the school is doing I'd like to see something concrete...hell, some of those sentences don't even make sense. but I just got irate at the implication that because a college does this that suddenly all liberals love racism

I guess after two years I should have learned to check my knee-jerk reactions. :o
 
but I just got irate at the implication that because a college does this that suddenly all liberals love racism

Oh, of course the thread title is overbroad and sensationalistic. But I guess I've just come to accept that a par for the course in some circles.

But yeah, similar to what you said while I have little doubt that the policies mentioned exist, I'd like to know how much attention is actually paid to them before I get all up in arms. And of course these policies were written by a select few, so they prove that a handful of people in positions of authority are idiots (or perhaps "love racism")...they don't really even prove that those in that handful are "liberals."
 
I hate it when people get vilified for using terms in their proper context. Racism is one of those words, as is prejudice. Racism does not equal prejudice which in turn does not equate to discrimination. Is it wrong to try and teach college students the correct definition of racism just because said definition, although factual, offends the right wing?
 
Is it wrong to try and teach college students the correct definition of racism just because said definition, although factual, offends the right wing?
dude, this:
“[a] racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system.
is flat out wrong. That's not the definition of racism.
 
Some of this racism stuff is crying wolf to the point that attention to real racism gets diluted.

Like they are after Cheney because somebody had a confederate flag in the back of a garage on a hunting plantation he visited.

Yeah,that's really going to help.
 
"The Office of Residence Life, within its offices and its residence halls, will become a place where diversity among people is recognized, valued and demonstrated. Racism, sexism, heterosexism, ageism, ableism and other behaviors and systems that empower some while oppressing others will not be tolerated. Programs, policies, and procedures will reflect the importance and acceptance of diversity. Actions that encourage and promote diversity will be valued and rewarded."

Don't know whether to laugh, cry or puke. Your tax dollars at work, citizens. . .
 
The wording could have been different, but yes, their definition of racism is essentially correct. And no, monorities can not, by definition, be racist. Racism, prejudice and bigotry and not the same thing, although most americans use the terms virtually interchangeably.

Even most dictionarys now define racism as some sort of belief that one race is superior to another without regard to societal constructs. I hate it when the definition of a word changes just because people use it wrongly so often.
 
wow sorry dude, but you're way wrong on that. minorities can be racist. whites are not the only ones that the term "racist" can be applied to
 
Last edited:
Words change meaning all the time. You may not like it, but it's true. Its part of language. The CURRENT definition of racism which you'll find in nearly all dictionaries is the correct definition.
 
And people wonder why there's a skinhead movement in America? It is nothing but the "shadow" of the white-hating racists who hide behind the walls of ivy.

It is pathetic where we have arrived and scary where we are going.
 
Words change meaning all the time. You may not like it, but it's true. Its part of language. The CURRENT definition of racism which you'll find in nearly all dictionaries is the correct definition.
While you have a point we should still remember that racism has never meant something that is specific to whites. Racism itself has existed for thousands of years and it's existed in various cultures. Tribalism, sexism or any other -ism isn't much different.
 
Public officials are screwed up. There are more of them in leftwing states, so you have to listen to their **** more often there. I realize I can not do anything about it, more than avoiding them. I do that, and I do rather OK actually. Leftwing states will collaps under their own **** because people with brains move out of there. The Hillary pack have it coming. Relax. Have a soda. See them go under from a distance. Cheers.
 
Back
Top