The Difference between Disagreement and Discrimination
I read this blurb from Queerty about a rift between the University of Toledo’s college Republicans and their very liberal faculty. The young Republicans are crying discrimination, likening their situation to discrimination against – you guessed it – homosexuals. Now that we have seen the Right use all of our tactics against us, it seems that the gloves are off in the battle of who is most oppressed.
This is where I need to draw the most obvious and important distinction: disagreement does not equal discrimination. If liberal professors are disagreeing with conservative students, that’s called “classroom discussion.” If we call out every dissenting opinion we come across and cry discrimination, we’re undermining the very goal of eliminating discrimination by confusing and distorting its meaning. The freedom to express dissent is the greatest thing to ever develop out of our culture, and we need to think carefully about what offends us and why.
The College Republicans claim that the liberal faculty members “…have a bias… that might affect the way they are treated or graded.” If they could actually prove that accusation, it would be discrimination. Based on the evidence so far, it is only disagreement. Even Fox News presents this as blown out of proportion, and I think it’s illustrative of what we ladies get into when we discuss a heated topic about beliefs or identity.
Now step into your old women’s studies class for a moment, and think back to the times when someone cries/calmly states that, “what you said really offended me.” Time stops. In the one class that’s supposed to be free of discrimination, offense and most of the “isms,” you look like a big asshole. Did you say something disagreeable, or did you offend? Maybe you did a little of both, but the conversation has either come screeching to a halt, or people have starting telling endless anecdotes about their own similar but slightly different experience.
Before you know it, the kernel of that discussion has been lost. What the college Republicans are doing here is trying to tame the liberal professors by crying discrimination; this is something that both the Left and the Right has done for years. He who offends must shut the fuck up. Since we don’t want to raise our shut-the-fuck-up average anymore, let’s use our words wisely.
We have oodles of biased, discriminatory, offensive people in the world (like these college students, who are crying discrimination for losing their freedom to discriminate). I am not saying we should give these truly terrible people the time of day. I’m saying we should think carefully about the difference between disagreement and discrimination, for the sake of carrying a real discussion to a logical end.
- Login or register to post comments
- Comments [23]
Tweet
Comments [23]
Am I reading this right?
"We like to think of it as a liberal professor directory, not a list. Also, we'd like for it to be used as a resource for liberal students who are looking for like-minded professors that will positively affect their grade based on their bias," he said.
Rubin added he and the UT College Republicans are not against professors who have liberal views.
"We realize that some professors are liberal, and that's ok, it's when they completely disregard a student's opinion or they have a bias against them that might affect the way they are treated or graded, is what we think is wrong," Rubin said.
So its OK for a professor to favor via grades a student who's views follow those of the college's Republican support group, but it is not OK for a professor to reduce the grade if the student does not agree? Either way, it is discrimination.
After reading everything I can find on this, it seems likely that some student or students received low grades because they were not responding to the information presented and tested in their classes. I have known individuals, who happened to have very liberal views, who refused to give what they knew were the "right" answers on a test, as presented in class material, because they did not agree with the social politics of that material. They failed the class. Other folks who felt the same way responded with the correct answer as presented in the class material, and added a note of their disagreement with some of that material, with supporting evidence. They maintained their 4.0 averages.
There are definitely some professors out there that will not tolerate dissenting views in their classes. Their are also students out there who will not allow the professor to present material that they objectionable, monopolizing class time with endless discussion of their own agenda. In my opinion, neither are socially equipped for the intellectual rigor that should permeate the college setting.
Life in a real higher ed program
I, luckily, each at the graduate level. Once students are past the core courses, we rarely have any type of exam. Rather, students are asked to apply their knowledge via some type of project, oral presentation, in-depth paper, capstone experience, practicum etc. They often collaborate in teams because employers tell us they want people who can work with other people.
We develop rubrics by which to assess their performance and those rubrics are given to the students as they begin their assignment. The criteria is not kept a secret. We ask any practicum supervisors to provide feedback on student performance.The point is that there are some checks and balances in the system to check bias, although one can argue they are not perfect.
If students believe professors are being unfair, there's a chance to give feedback via a confidential survey at the end of each course to assess the instructor's strengths and weakness in teaching. That feedback goes to the program chair first for his/her review. If the data shows a pattern of unfairness by some instructor, the program chair should know about it.
Regarding tenure, one cannot assume that all professors have tenure. Many do not. It takes years to receive tenure and there is a rigorous evaluation at points during your tenure clock.
Last academic year during the Presidential election, we had a controversy on our campus about political speakers on campus. This resulted in liberal professors, including me, to advocate allowing Republican and candidates/speakers and those of other political parties to be allowed to come to campus. It wasn't faculty but administration that denied some speakers. We vigorously opposed this we believe in freedom of speech and we believe that our students are mature enough to make up their own mind about politics and candidates.
The academy has its controversies. We welcome them as they are an opportunity to learn.
Still searching for the right brainy quote.
Familiar
I have also found this to be true from Masters programs on. Similar safeguards also exist in many under grad programs. In fact, some of the most restrictive programs when it comes to dissenting opinions, are at religious universities with fundamentalists doctrines.
What bothers me most about the group described in this post, is that even in their own writing they note that they have not sought other recourse. And in fact, they seek to have favoritism in lieu of what they see as discrimination.
"We like to think of it as a
"We like to think of it as a liberal professor directory, not a list. Also, we'd like for it to be used as a resource for liberal students who are looking for like-minded professors that will positively affect their grade based on their bias," I guess its very generous from him to make liberals look like kind of cheaters lol
"There are definitely some professors out there that will not tolerate dissenting views in their classes"
Oh and i bet its not your case
Thats what i like in manual work, (i have talked about it previously) nobody's decide what's good or bad but geometry. For me its very comforting that i'm not judge with subjectivity, i can't do a bad work that peoples tell its good to not hurt my feelings, or do a good work that peoples say its bad for whatsoever reason such as keep my salary low. And peoples who trick you can not pretend to themselves they are right.
-Do not follow me, I'M LOST-
things vs people
There are times when working with things rather than people has its advantages.
As far as my job, if I can get most of my grade school kids to state and support any opinion at all, I am overjoyed.
I'll take the house whine and stick it
What I find most amazing about this intellectually dishonest article, and the whiney responses, is the way you automatically support the establishment power structure.
Guess what? That makes you the establishment, and not the edgy anti-establisment of your delusion.
"Tame the liberal professors." and "If liberal professors are disagreeing with conservative students, that’s called “classroom discussion.”
Are you effing kidding me?
In case you hadn't noticed, the permanent "faculty" and the regents at a college have all the power. The passing-through students have no power. The college authority has the power to select, to grade and to affirm the "correct" way of thinking.
But you can't acknowledge that very clear reality because it blows a hole bigger than the Grand Canyon in your dishonest article.
In any power relationship those without the power are always beholden to those who have a very real ability to affect their lives. What is more important to a young person than they be allowed to express themselves without fear that it will be held against them, and used against them?
Now whether those people are Republicans or conservatives, or libertarians, or gay, or lesbian, or whatever, they own how they feel they are being treated.
Of course, you have to support the establishment power structure, because, well, you seem to agree with it.
Oh -- and it is you who set up a strawman premise about the "battle to see who is most oppressed".
That's your argument, not the college Republicans who are the subject of this article. Of course, it's also a particularly odious and self-serving comparison with a fallacious logic meant to support you.
How so? By setting up a league table of "oppression" it enables you to justify a conclusion that boils down to this: "Well, I (or those who went before me) clearly am/was more oppressed than THEM -- so EFF THEM, they can go screw themselves as far as I am concerned."
You don't care if they are being discriminated against because you don't agree with them. You feel no empathy for what "they" say they feel. You note, I didn't say: you feel no empathy for their opinions (why should you), but no empathy for what their experience leads them to believe is how they are treated by those in power for holding those opinions.
This is how you get to decide whether they are right to feel disciminated against. Not them.
So that's your intellectual sophistry at work.
And if you really want to rile up some African-Americans with your strawman "battle who has been most oppressed" -- try telling them that your whitebread ass has been just as oppressed (if not more so) than blacks for the past two centuries.
See how far that gets you.
Not very far because, rightly or wrongly, the vast majority of blacks resent when certain members of the gay community try to equate themselves to their civil rights struggle.
Talk about strawmen
Could you please define who the 'you' is you are referring to???
Think what you want,
but please try to state it with a modicum of respect.
And if you really want to rile up some African-Americans with your strawman "battle who has been most oppressed" -- try telling them that your whitebread ass has been just as oppressed (if not more so) than blacks for the past two centuries.
Not cool, and this is just the most obvious excerpt. I'd love to read your views, sans the disrespect.
From time to time, we will
From time to time, we will all disagree with other people. Each indiviual is shaped by their own experiences along with an internal thought process that develops our personal beliefs and opinons. For human beings, it is extremely rare that one will agree with another on absolutely everything. With isagreement leading to discussion and discussion sometimes leading to misunderstanding and misunderstanding sometimes leading to offense. This is a very common and natural part of human interaction.
When does offense become discrimination? It becomes discrimination when a person is treated differently or unfairly simply because they are different. In the case of these college students, discrimination would be lower grades for their work or exclusion from class discussion. It would involve them going through the proper channels of the school to report behavior and being ignored. However, this is not the case at Toledo University. The group that claims to be discriminated against is only complaining amongst themselves about professors who have made comments in class that reflect liberal political views. The students who find this offensive have decided to remain anonymous, have not even had a preliminary discussion wih their own professor, and are creating a list of liberal professors on their College Republicans Organization website in order to help other conservative students avoid taking classes with liberal professors.
It is my opinion that this type of behavior is highly non-productive for people who are looking for fair and equal treatment free of discrimination. You may well disagree and I certainly have no qualms against you doing so. However, I take issue with, and offense at, the way that you have expressed your opinion above. There really is no need to attack Sarrah. She has presented information along with her opinion and left it open to discussion. The least we can do is express our opinions, however different they may be, in a respectful manner keeping to the guidlines set by the administrators of this site. I was so happy to see a new voice/face on VP and so disappointed to find that it was a voice bathed in vitriol. I m interested in hearing your opinions on further topics that surround discrimination and oppression, as I find your views interesting. However, I hope that you can find a way to seek a fuller understanding of the views expressed by others or, at the very least, discuss your opinion without attacking others.
Hmmm
Young Republican organizations typically have lots of money. I suggest they take all of us liberal professors out for a beer to counteract any feelings of bias we may have against them.
Fully tongue in cheek, Profesora Mins
Still searching for the right brainy quote.
Also censorship
"He who offends must shut the fuck up." I disagree and think there is a middle ground between censoring and ignoring what we find offensive. The middle ground is debate.
Telling people what they should or should not find offensive is another form of censorship. I don't keep my mouth shut if someone tells a racist, sexist, homophobic,etc joke or story in earshot. Silence is acceptance.
"When you look for the bad in mankind expecting to find it, you surely will." ~ Pollyanna
Rusty
I think what Sarah said is that this is a tactic being used, by equating offense with discrimination, to get people they don't want talking on the defense and make them feel or seem like an a hole so they will shut up. She was not endorsing or approving of it. Sarah, yes?
"Before you know it, the kernel of that discussion has been lost. What the college Republicans are doing here is trying to tame the liberal professors by crying discrimination; this is something that both the Left and the Right has done for years. He who offends must shut the fuck up. Since we don’t want to raise our shut-the-fuck-up average anymore, let’s use our words wisely."
Thanks Gurrrrl
Yep, you got it. That was not my opinion - I was describing a tactic used by others that I don't support, but someone clearly tried to use in the comment essay above.
And in response to that comment: I think it's hard to equate the struggle of blacks and gays with that of Republicans, and I think that equating those two dissimilar subjects leads to the very problem that I addressed in this article.
Agree
FG, you're absolutely right. I didn't explain what I meant clearly. I mean that society has options between telling someone to shut up and letting everything slide. I support speaking up when offended. That doesn't mean I want the person I'm confronting to self-censor or worse, have the government step in. I do want them to understand why I'm offended.
"When you look for the bad in mankind expecting to find it, you surely will." ~ Pollyanna
I agree, to tell someone to
I agree, to tell someone to shut up is another way of validating a world where debate is something to frown on. When one confronts a hateful comment with an argument, there is a chance to turn that hate into understanding, if not for the hater, for someone standing by.
Religious right and
Religious right and conservatives around the world are going to try to dictate behavior by their own standards, regardless of what other people might want. Avoiding debate at all costs is the best way to keep as many people as they can under their rigid and out of date morals, which are no longer efficient. That is a strategy to keep power among a few selected people, and frankly, is as old as injustice. The kind of accusations they are making, while implying anyone who diverges from their opinion is wrong and less entitled to exist, are not only bogus but show desperation because of the complete loss of sense on their rhetoric. They feel discriminated because they are no longer entitled to force their morals down our throats, at least to some extent.
“…crying discrimination for losing their freedom to discriminate” brings to mind Orwell’s Animal farm “All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.” (Ch.10 ¶ 18) both sentences lacks of logic in every possible aspect, and behind that curtain of nonsense hides what they really mean; their own rights are more important than yours.
Hey Antonia
How YOU doin'?!
RIGHT ON
for real
I feel like this has been happening more and more since Obama took office. Right-Wingers used to have all the power and now that they don't, they are embracing their "minority" status by crying discrimination when they get called out on their bigotry. A recent example is Carrie Prejean suing on the grounds of "religious discrimination" as the reason for her getting fired as Miss California. She claims it's because of what she said in the Miss USA pageant http://tinyurl.com/c7w4y5 when really it was because she broke contract agreements like not showing up for public appearances. Because she's become a spokesperson for anti-gay equality is why people like me hate her, but it's not why she was dethroned.
Prejean Lawsuit
Yes, this is becoming increasingly the tactic of the radical right, to claim discimination if you don't allow them to, you guessed it, promote a climate of fear and intolerance to promote their particular brand of discrimination.
With the way things have been going in California lately, she'll probably win.
Carrie Prejean...
what a piece of work - wonder how much she is 'making' for someone convincing her to file that law suit in her behalf?!?! Republicans continuing to make a mockery of the system and treatment of minorities. Maybe if they continue to pull boners such as this one at an exaggerated pace, even the yahoos will start to question the motives....there is hope if FOX thinks it's asinine. God bless idealistic higher eders
Twitter Time @kdhales
Oh Republicans...
If I had a nickel for every time they called a black person racist...
@sarahp13
Pet peeve
Sarah, yes, the 'black racist' thing is a personal pet peeve, and although as Amy mentioned it has gained traction since Obama's election, this trend of co-opting the language of oppression from those one has oppressed is not an entirely new phenomena.
I do, however, see some 'theoretical' validity to conservatives' concern that a liberal bias on the part of those in power (i.e. professors) could potentially impact a subordinate (student) negatively. But there are numerous academic policies in place to safe-guard that this does not happen. So I guess my question to these Young Republicans is what is their remedy for the situation? Should professors model themselves after supposedly un-biased journalists? Or should there be 'affirmative action' for conservative professors?
brilliant. thanks for this
brilliant. thanks for this blog.
"there will never be a technology more advanced than the human mind - fully engaged in the divine process of being. technology is a tool not a destination." me.