Why pay $45,000 a year to have your 18-year-old fall under the sway of politically correct idiots, asks Mona Charen.
University of Delaware is reviving its “residential life” program, abandoned last year under charges of indoctrination and invasion of privacy. The new model “encourages students to become engaged and active citizens by understanding how their thoughts, values, beliefs, and actions affect the people with whom they live and by recognizing their citizenship responsibilities at a local, national, and global level.” It’s the old program in sheep’s clothing, reports FIRE.
Same old political agenda, says the Delaware Association of Scholars in urging the faculty to reject the plan.
Like the old program, the new one centers on “sustainability.” But while the old program defined the term (”the triple bottom line of having a society which is socially just, and communities which are economically and environmentally responsible”), the new program leaves the term undefined.
. . . (The new program) will have a Graduate Assistant for Diversity Initiatives, whose responsibilities include “Stereotyping, Oppression, Prejudice Reduction, Privilege, Heterosexism/ Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Awareness, Racism, Ageism, Sexism, Values Clarification, Multicultural Jeopardy, Classism”
No agenda there.
Charles Lane writes about Yale’s miscarriage artist, whose goal was to attack the “sexist, racist, ableist, nationalist and homophobic perspective, distinguishing what body parts are ‘meant’ to do from their physical capability.” That means she doesn’t think her uterus is for making babies. She should have taken more bio, less art.
So, from this, I would guess then that you are in favour of stereotyping, oppression, prejudice, privilege, homophobia, racism, ageism, sexism, corruption, intolerance and elitism?
If not, then what, exactly, is wrong with the ‘agenda’ or the ‘indoctrination’ proposed by this program?
Stephen, It was obvious that last years program encouraged sterotyping, prejudice, racism and sexism. It just encouraged the politically correct version that taught hate of males, whites, heterosexuals, and religious people.
The real question is did the University of Delaware inform prospective students that they would be subject to political reeducation when they applied to the public university. I doubt that students, parents, and families were told that entering freshmen would be subject to endoctrination.
Steven it is disturbing that you don’t understand how this program is antithetical to the First Amendment. It is not the job of the University of Delaware or any other governmental organization to tell us what to think. It is totalitarian societies, not democracies, that have thought police. It is very telling that you included elitism and privilege in your list of evils. Yes I do understand where you are coming from. You would have made a very good commissar in the old Soviet Union.
> If not, then what, exactly, is wrong with the ‘agenda’ or the ‘indoctrination’ proposed by this program?
If your motivations are pure, if your beliefs are beyond reproach and above criticism then of course using your position of power to proselytize is right and just.
If you’re sure you’re right then why take the chance that the ignorant unwashed will come to the wrong conclusion when simply presented with the facts? Nope, far better to make sure they hear only an appropriately sculpted version of the facts from which only the proper conclusion can be drawn.
I see Mr. Downes that you are a Canadian, so I do understand where you are coming from. You already have the thought police in the guise of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I am sure that you are a big supporter of its goal to destroy free speech in Canada. However, I believe that Mark Steyn would respectively disagree.
http://tinyurl.com/648b6d
D’oh. Make that respectfully. You really need to provide a preview capability, Joanne.
Well, I certainly believe that political correctness is insidious but it looks to me like this revision leaves the political correctness behind.
To be a good citizen, to be tolerant, to get along with your neighbors. Sounds Jeffersonian to me.
Nothing wrong with that.
(Unless you’re a right-wing nut who still thinks that global warming is a myth, that whole-language is a Communist plot and that those weapons of mass destruction will be found any day now.)
But, I still prefer right wing nuts over the politically correct police.
I had a couple of the latter call up my boss to see if I could be fired for comments I made in a public forum about the behavior of poor kids in the classroom. So, I’m not very fond of the politically correct police.
And for the 20 years I’ve had a poster of V. I. Lenin in my classroom, not once has anybody from the right raised a fuss.
The right wing, for all of their stupidity, tend to be more tolerant, more open minded, than the PC left.
A lot more.
Hi,
I don’t know much on the background ofthis program at Delaware.
However, I’m not clear on how the discussion of the issues stated about translates to indoctrination. Yes, the conversations would be political. Life is political.
Those who seek to silence the discussion of these issues in spaces like colleges are also making a political statement. This political statement could mean support of existing power structures, or perhaps stating that oppression, racism, sexual discrimination do not exist.
Could someone clue me in on why these discussions should not take place at the University?
Why don’t they make a course or two in moral philosophy a graduation requirement? If you want discussions on moral philosphy put it in its proper place led by people qualified to lead discussions in it…the philosophers.
LH -
The offensive thing about the original UD Residence program was not that it sought to discuss these things, but how and when it sought to discuss them. These are great topics for the classroom. They should not be foisted upon students in the residence halls, nor should participation in such discussions and echoing of particular viewpoints be mandatory. In the original program, it was clear that the residents of the halls were required to embrace and espouse a far-left political viewpoint.
Given that all first year students are placed in the residence halls and required to participate in the First Year Experience program, per UD’s website, the situation as it stood was wrong.
While the UD page that Joanne linked to makes the program look less offensive, those connected to UD believe it will be executed in the same manner as before.
We pay a heavy price for the draft. That led to the no-fail rule, and that led to graduates with libarts degrees who never got past the slogans of the frat house beer bust.
Imagine a plumbing apprenticeship where the value of leak free connections was subordinated to the value of passing the trainees.
I don’t know much on the background ofthis program at Delaware.
However, I’m not clear on how the discussion of the issues stated about translates to indoctrination.
LH, I believe your first sentence explains your confusion.
Yes, the conversations would be political. Life is political.
Those who seek to silence the discussion of these issues in spaces like colleges are also making a political statement.
So after you have indicated you don’t know about the program you still give your opinion on it. Why?
This political statement could mean support of existing power structures, or perhaps stating that oppression, racism, sexual discrimination do not exist.
So what you are trying to tell us is that you are just a left-wing ideologue.
Could someone clue me in on why these discussions should not take place at the University?
Simple. Universities are for education, not reeducation. However, given your previous statement I’m afraid you won’t understand.
I will grant that it has been many years since I lived in a college dorm. However, even back in the liberal 70’s dorms had the usual difficulties associated with people living together. My dorm was overwhelmingly white, and I recall that while there were no overt statements of racism, it was not the most comfortable place for the few black students who lived there.
I don’t recall being aware of any gay students in my dorm (which assuredly does not indicated that none were there)–but I do remember guys that I knew going through some ugliness–posting the names of suspected “fairies” on the bulletin board etc. At Christmas time we bungled through a conflict about the location of Stars of David on the floor’s bulletin board. We felt intimidated when a Soul Food dinner brought black students from all around campus on meal transfers.
While I have chosen for my own children a life that fosters more difference than I or my dorm mates experienced, my guess is that someone who is paying $45,000 a year for tuition and board has probably experienced a more protected environment. I suppose that the U. could elect to continue that protection and do what it could to minimize human differences (and turn out teachers who continue to think that sped is an appropriate moniker for a student with disabilities). After all, subtle discrimination has worked for years.
Or, they could do the sensible thing and provide an environment that teaches about such things as, I don’t know, the effect of Constitutional protections on life in a dormitory.
Hi Richard,
Could you please clarify this statement: “Universities are for education, not reeducation.”
I am trying to understand where you are coming from, but do not appreciate the attacks.
Or, they could do the sensible thing and provide an environment that teaches about such things as, I don’t know, the effect of Constitutional protections on life in a dormitory.
If you mean the First Amendment freedom of speech, Margo/Mom, then I agree with you. Otherwise I am not sure what you are trying to say.
Could you please clarify this statement: “Universities are for education, not reeducation.â€
Well thanks for proving me correct, LH. Education is teaching people about facts, ideas and concepts. Reeducation is a form of brainwashing where one attempts to instill certain beliefs in people against their will. Does that help?
Why don’t they make a course or two in moral philosophy a graduation requirement?
There is already requirement to take at least one multi-cultural course in order to graduate. At least there was when I graduated from Delaware in ‘99. I believe I took both “Politics of 3rd World Nations” and an English course on Environmental Literature to satisfy it freshman year.
Why pile this unbalanced curriculum on students who are paying the university for housing?
“If you mean the First Amendment freedom of speech, Margo/Mom, then I agree with you. Otherwise I am not sure what you are trying to say.”
Well, how about equal protection, equal opportunity, the implied right to privacy. How about freedom to peaceably assemble or the non-establishment of religion? You are right though–there might be a need to follow up the Constitutional study with a peek into some other areas of federal or state legislation–say, civil rights.
Margo/Mom, I’m all for students knowing about the Constitution. I would have hoped that they learned all about it in high school, but better late than never. So I will add to your list the second amendment right to bear arms that doesn’t seem to be allowed at most (all?) universities. Also, I will add the free exercise of religion. By the way, while I am all for equal opportunity, I don’t seem to find it in my copy of the constitution, or is that one of those implied rights?
Richard:
While you seem to be certain that one can learn “all about” the constitution in a high school class, there are nine people in black robes who arrive at some sense only at the pinnacle of their career–and are charged with interpreting for the rest of us.
Knowing nothing about the Delaware “residential life” program, other than what I read in the blogs, I cannot make a knowledgable condemnation of it. However it is not to hard to figure out and verbalize just what our suspcisions are. Our suspicions are that in such a program one will be made to feel bad for being white. One will be made to feel that there is a standing accusation of racism, and that there is no defense to that accusation, that any defense will be met with an accusation of being in denial. We suspect that in such a program the last thing we can do or expect is to be open, honest, and thoughtful. We suspect the “thought police” are in control, and we’d better fall in line.
I suspect there are some basic assumptions being made in these programs, the assumption that race is fundamental to one’s identity, the assumption that race matters in every context, and the assumption that race is forever. I totally disagree with these assumptions. I think they are not only fundamentally wrong, but are counterproductive to what enlightened people want to accomplish. But I suspect that such disagreements would be taken in this program only as evidence against me. My basis for suspecting these assumptions are made is personal experience - people I have talked to, and articles I have read - going back many years.
In short, I strongly suspect that “indoctrination” is exactly the word for Delaware’s residential life program.
I have not made accusations in stating the above. I have simply and honestly shared my thoughts. I have said what is in my mind. I do have these suspicions. They are as real as the kitchen sink. I hope my suspicions are wrong. My suspicions should be met with honest acceptance. My suspicions, were I involved in the Delaware situation, would go away, only by being genuinely proved false to my satisfaction. Though I know nothing first hand about the Delaware situation I do have some personal experience with people who consider themselves enlightened and morally superior.
American society in general, I think, understands why many people follow the common rule not to talk about religion or politics. I do know people for whom the two are indistinguishable. Those who want to better understand why programs like these are met with wariness might try to imagine their reaction to being forced into a discussion of religion led and controlled by true believers.
I am not one to say that there is no place at all for indoctrination in a good education. But that place is mostly in preschool and kindergarten. When a kindergartener is told in no uncertain terms, “You don’t hit your classmate, because it’s wrong! ! ! ” that is a form of indoctrination that I support. But I am not sure there is any legitimate place for indoctrination in higher education. Hopefully the Delaware program is not indoctrination. I have only my suspicions. But I would say that those who support programs such as that in Delaware should take very seriously the suspicions that I have identified.
For those who haven’t already seen it, here’s an interesting document about the earlier version of the Delaware program. Particularly interesting is the encounter between one spirited young woman and her assigned indoctrinator.
I read through the “new model” and it looked pretty innocuous to me. Earth Day celebrations seemed to be balanced by Thanksgiving Dinner. Lot of attention to “sustainability” which I take to mean not using up all the resources of the earth before your children are born. It is true that there are months for awareness of Hispanics, African Americans and Women (cannot recall if there was one for people with disabilities).
It is true that there was not a white man’s awareness month. But other than that, it takes a pretty good chunk of reading in to come up with Brian’s opinions about what it might include.
I also read David’s link–which I can only assume came from the “earlier version” since it has nothing to indicate what it was or where it came from. Not entirely sure who was indoctrinating whom–or that either succeeded in swaying the opinion of the other. The angy woman seemed a bit scary to me, though.
Margo…as I mentioned, the link was from the earlier version.
Regarding “who was indoctrinating whom,” you might ask yourself who was in the position of authority.
If you really think this woman’s spirit in the face of administrative pressure was “scary”…then I think *that* is a little scary.
I think LH’s misconception is the idea that anyone here thinks such discussions should not take place at the University. I will presume to speak for all in saying no, that’s not the case, we think such discussions are a fine thing. What we don’t like is mandated discussions, organized and directed by the University as an authority. What ever happened to the “question authority” ethos? Is it now the height of college culture to meekly follow along with whatever conversational agenda the university bureaucracy comes up with? If anyone is silencing the students, it is this program with its imposition of what is a suitable topic, squeezing out any spontaneous and student directed discussions. I say, let the students talk and keep The Man out of it!
David–actually the link is to a document somewhere on a website with lots of assorted stuff about how universities are indoctrinating our young people. This particular snippet is an RA’s reflection on her experience in structured one-on-ones with her students (so I gather). Among the things credited to the person that I would gather you would term to be the indoctrinee (btw–your supposition that the person “in authority” is the indoctrinator is similar to definitions that the website objected to that define racism/racist according to who has the power)are these:
“the problems in our society are because we are always shoving diversity down people throats. I cannot recall exactly what else Ms. ?????? said because she was speaking so fast and in such an angry voice”
“that people have a legal right to hate other races and/or people that are different then us.”
“I offend people everyday just by being alive. They look at me and feel insulted. Then I open my mouth and they are further insulted. I say things like “good day!†and they take insult. — More sarcasm! All right!”
Actually, Margo/Mom, the bit about offending people every day could be very true if you were a straight white male who had the misfortune of being around the types of dysfunctional people who dream up programs like the one originally in place at UD. I’m straight, look white, and male and I’ve dealt with people like these. I know.
As for the bit about the legal right to hate other people, that is both absolutely true so long as you don’t hurt other people, and it sounds like something a disgruntled college freshman would say to get a rise out of a PC zombie like the one she was talking to.
Finally, I highly doubt that the RA gave an impartial description of the young lady’s tone of voice. Given how clueless the RA appears to be in his final assessment, I’d bet that s/he took a sarcastic tone that wouldn’t phase someone who’d been out in the real world, as opposed to a college dorm, and blew it out of proportion.
Assuming this program is run by RA’s, then they have no qualifications or expertise to discuss the issue. That they’ve attended “intense” workshops in a sheltered setting at the school where they “role play” means absolutely nothing… in the end, all their “experience” is fabricated by those that run the program.
During my dorm years as an undergrad in the late 90’s we had similar “diversity” prgrams that were spearheaded by the resident housing director and her team of RA’s. There were programs on being gay in America, the various forms of being transexual/transgendered, etc, and role play workshops on what it felt like to be a minority or disabled individual.
The hilarious thing was that no one from my floor would ever go (except for the rare Swedish massage workshop), we were too involved studying, watching TV, or playing video games. During each event she would come up the elevator (she was wheelchair-bound herself) and criticize us for not participating, often passing judgement on us as being intolerant, biased, and hateful. Her rants became the stuff of legend, and were doubly funny because she was yelling at us about being intolerant.
To those that think that this program simply fosters discussion that will promote growth and understanding of others (like LH)… it won’t.
Yes, the current model proposed by UD shows no overt signs of imposing on free speech… that’s because they just got their butts handed to them over their last policy. Of course they’re going to be careful and vague in their descriptions of the new (in name only) program - why make it easy for them to be taken to task by FIRE?
SS–I believe that one of the changes was to use “professionals” of some sort to deliver content, rather than RAs. I believe your experience brings up the difficulty attached to making such programs optional, in short, the intended audience is never reached.
I don’t know who is backing FIRE–I couldn’t find much info on their website. But I would prefer to stand with colleges making an effort to make dorms/campuses more liveable places for a broad spectrum of students. I have known too many (not only my experience here–but the whole range from then to my daughter’s current experience) folks who had to grit their teeth and just get through on campuses that had a hard time seeing their covert hostility. And, of course, the sad element is that not all make it.
Margo/Mom
There are 7000 students in UD’s Reslife program. Do you really believe they are going to hire professionals to instruct that many students? It would cost a ridiculous amount of money. Money they will have to charge the students in the program. No, they’re going to make the RAs do it (and call them professionals because they’re being paid). This costs ResLife nothing because they’re already paying the RAs.
The real issue is this sort of indoctrination does not result in any sort of open-minded environment where everyone lives happily like little Care Bears. What happens is that some groups get lifted up (like homosexuals and ethnic minorities) for the sake of open-mindedness and other groups get disparaged as “oppressors” (conservatives and anyone with religious convictions). I don’t have anything against the former, but the latter is unacceptable, especially when colleges already have deep institutional biases against the latter groups.
The invasion of privacy alone in the old program was enough to make me shudder.
So–I’m wondering. What would be an appropriate response for a university to make to things on campus like harassment or isolation of students who are not a part of the mainstream?
I don’t know who is backing FIRE–I couldn’t find much info on their website.
Margo/Mom, it is me and people like me who believe in the mission of FIRE who support it.
The mission of FIRE is to defend and sustain individual rights at America’s colleges and universities. These rights include freedom of speech, legal equality, due process, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience—the essential qualities of individual liberty and dignity. FIRE’s core mission is to protect the unprotected and to educate the public and communities of concerned Americans about the threats to these rights on our campuses and about the means to preserve them.
If the ACLU actually did their job there would be no need for FIRE. Unlike the ACLU FIRE takes on cases both from the Left and the Right.
so–I’m wondering. What would be an appropriate response for a university to make to things on campus like harassment or isolation of students who are not a part of the mainstream?
Margo/Mom you seem to have some issues that are impacting your judgment. There is no harassment or isolation problem on campus. Any member of any group is able to find a group of friends to hang out with. The only people that are isolated are the ones that self-segregate themselves. In fact it is the University itself that fosters this isolation by creating separate dorms for gays, blacks, Latinos, Indians, etc. Thus the University is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
What would be an appropriate response for a university to make to things on campus like harassment or isolation of students who are not a part of the mainstream?
How about by punishing the harassers through the existing ResLife system? Ultimately isn’t this program about punishing everyone as if they were guilty? It’s too much work to figure out who the guilty parties are, so lets just assign everyone in ResLife the same punishment. It’ll be good for them anyway. And while we’re at it, lets use this training to reinforce the existing negative stereotypes about groups we don’t like.
So–I’m wondering. What would be an appropriate response for a university to make to things on campus like harassment or isolation of students who are not a part of the mainstream?
That’s simple. Punish actual acts of harassment and create an environment where everyone is treated with respect because they are human beings. The racism and sexism inherent in programs such as the original ResLife program at UD (and likely the current one as well) do more to cause harassment and isolation than to prevent it. Peddling the idea that race, gender, sexual orientation, and social class are the totality of a person’s identity is the most divisive thing going in America today.
I don’t know how it is where you fellows work–but in my workplace we are required to attend regular trainings aimed at avoiding some of the more common punishable offenses (harassment, discrimination, ethics violations, etc). Some are better than others, but I wouldn’t consider them to be punishment. Punishment occurs when someone actually violates some of the policies and receives a sanction of some kind, or loses their job.
Richard, I am happy to year that the young people at UD have reached Nirvana. Do you suppose it is the water, or something? Because my experience has been that this sort of everyone gets along atmosphere is not a naturally occurring one in our society. I would love to hear that from a representative sampling of the UD students, though.
I don’t know how it is where you fellows work–but in my workplace we are required to attend regular trainings aimed at avoiding some of the more common punishable offenses (harassment, discrimination, ethics violations, etc).
That’s fair, fine, and good. I’ve been through the same thing a hundred times before. The only thing is that wasn’t at all what was going on at UD. In what corporate anti-harassment class have you been asked “When did you first discover your sexual identiy?” None, I’ll bet, because it’s a severe invasion of privacy.
The course at UD was designed not to train people to avoid harassing others, but to browbeat them into accepting a far-left belief set about what constitutes racism, sexism, and harassment that is completely divorced from both common sense and reality.
As someone who’s been told, back when I was in college, that I had “no right to an opinion” because I was a white male who’d “been in power too long”, I’ve got a fairly good idea of where the original ResLife program was going. And, yes, to people who were the wrong skin color, gender, or sexual orientation, programs like these *ARE* punishment.
Perhaps those forced to attend these Maoist self-criticism sessions should show up with tape over their mouths, in orange prison garb with leg irons and medicine balls, and other symbolic protests against the demonization of any non-PC persons or points of view.
I don’t know how it is where you fellows work–but in my workplace we are required to attend regular trainings aimed at avoiding some of the more common punishable offenses (harassment, discrimination, ethics violations, etc).
Yes, I have to attend these sorts of trainings at my workplace. But I am employed by them aren’t I? They pay me for my time and can therefore tell me what I ought to do with it.
The students in ResLife are paying the school for basic services like food and housing. They are customers and, legally speaking, adults. When was the last time your apartment complex required you to attend ethics training? Your TV or phone company? I’m betting never. They made you sign an agreement saying what you can and can’t do. If you broke it, they gave you a warning and/or refused service. End of story.
That isn’t even touching on what they were trying to teach and how it really is a form of punishment to many groups.
Ultimately, what it comes down to is this -
The whole field of diversity training is suspect, and many schools nationwide have foolishly listened to the snake-oil salesmen promising to end all of their troubles. As a result, unreasonable idealogues and unqualified sycophants are pushing a political agenda onto the students under the guise of improving themselves.
In this day of exponentially-increasing tuition and fees, can the school truly justify the money it spends on this program to those who actually pay the tuition and fees?
It used to be that the universities relied upon the professors to open the students’ eyes to world… what does it tell you that the schools must now rely upon the dorm administrations to “educate” the students? Are the professors that bad that they cannot accomplish this goal themselves? Or have the faculty simply rejected the concepts that the programs promote as useless and, at worst, damaging to the students?
Hi Richard,
Thank you for your response. I do understand the difference between reeducation (banking) and education. I was asking you to clarify your meanings.
I strongly support a program that discusses these issues within a residence life setting. Particularly when various individuals and groups are coming together to live. How can discussions like these not be relevant?
In fact, I participated in a residence life program very similar to the one described here. We discussed issues of educational disparity, white privilege, classism, etc. We were provided with a safe place to explore various conversations and agree and disagree.
Yes, execution of a program like this is critical. Discussions should be safe places and student-centered.
Yes, at times, people may feel uncomfortable. We all can play the role of oppressors and oppressed throughout our lives. We fear the discomfort that comes with the realization of privilege.
In my opinion, providing a structure for this type of program is meaningful.
I strongly support a program that discusses these issues within a residence life setting. … In fact, I participated in a residence life program very similar to the one described here. We discussed issues of educational disparity, white privilege, classism, etc.
LH, why am I not surprised that you support such a program. Have you been so brainwashed that you really believe that the mere fact that someone has white skin makes him privileged? Should the poor white factory workers, coal miners, etc. in this country feel privileged because they are white?
We fear the discomfort that comes with the realization of privilege.
Are you referring to the privilege that I received by the fact that my parents had to escape to this country without a penny to their name? Or the privilege I received from parents who lived through the Depression where they had to scrimp for every penny they had? Was it the privilege I received by my father having to put himself through night school in order to earn his college degree while working multiple jobs so that he could support his family? Or was it the privilege I received by growing up in a tenement in a poor neighborhood?
The problem is LH that you subscribe to an evil ideology, Marxism, that lives on envy and hate. The fact that it has been responsible for the deaths of upwards of 100 million people in the 20th century doesn’t seem to give you pause. You still want to impose it on the world. So how many more people should be sacrificed so that you can achieve your people’s paradise?