College students learn about “whiteness”
CVK
The Colorado Daily News discusses a new class being offered at University of Colorado, part of the growing field of “Whiteness Studies.”
According to the course syllabus, Whiteness Studies is spent “looking at white racial identity and its impact on society.” It is taught through a combination of “in-depth study, lively discussions, written and oral assignments, and individual and group assignments.” The 58 currently enrolled students, who represent a cross-section of majors, are assigned Jeff Hitchcock’s text, “Lifting the White Veil: An exploration of white American culture in a multiracial context.” The students also write an essay about the impact of either their own white identity or dominant societies’ white identity…
“This class is not about white-bashing or white-blaming,” said Duncan Rinehart, who is in his third semester co-instructing the course with senior sociology professor Eleanor Hubbard. “It is about looking at whiteness with some honesty and some integrity, but also fairly.”…
“White privilege” is the idea that white people have certain advantages that they do not notice and take for granted.
“I can turn on the televisionŠ and see people of my race widely represented,” wrote researcher Peggy McIntosh, who was repeatedly referenced at the symposium and is read in Whiteness Studies. “I can, if I wish, arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time. I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk to the ‘person in charge,’ I will be facing a person of my race.”
Lyonside wrote:
They tried to address this in a Honors Sociology and Literature class in my college. Picture 2 adult women profs, 18 students: 15 white, mostly suburban women, 1 biracial woman (myself), 1 African-American woman, and 1 Asian-American woman. Suddenly the 3 of use are supposed to go into sob stories about how awful it is for us (we could give stories, but without the sob), and the other students kind of resented being told they had white priveledge. After all, they figured that since they were women, that cancelled out any priveledge.
If McIntosh’s words had been read in class, I think they would have gotten it, just by looking around at the college we attended.
Posted 08 Dec 2005 at 11:39 am ¶
April wrote:
Hmm, interesting. I was just reading something the other day about how whiteness should be studied, lol. It’s going to be fairly hard though, considering that white people do not constitute any one particular ethnic background…
Posted 08 Dec 2005 at 1:36 pm ¶
Jelly Button wrote:
Let’s be honest, none of these fluffy sociological classes are going to be of any real use out in the real world. I find it interesting (yet predictable) that Lyonside’s class was 100% (mostly suburban) WOMEN. Because they are actually the ones over-privileged enough to be afforded the LUXURY of taking these “non-essential” courses…
You take a working-class guy who must assume the future responsibility of providing for a family (still expected of men even in post-feminist USA) - and he does NOT have the time or tuition to waste pondering such academic masturbatory liberadrivel while he is busy pondering how to PAY ALL THE BILLS. This means “hard” technical majors like engineering, medicine and other scientific studies. Or technical trades/military if he cannot make college. All of which further national progress, quality of life and maintain international competitiveness.
Sadly, these various subjective academic studies in self-absorption are not going to do much of the same, help outsourcing to more “hardcore” Asia and revive our economy - but are actually part of the problem. A nation of peoples isolated by our media who cannot see past our own bellybuttons anymore.
Pull your heads out already!
Posted 08 Dec 2005 at 5:05 pm ¶
Keya wrote:
I think it’s a good idea. As long as it’s not about white supremacy.
Posted 08 Dec 2005 at 9:58 pm ¶
Luke wrote:
That sound is the sound of stunned, and by stunned I mean police grade tazer-gun stunned, silence.
Well. I find issue with all of those comments and particularly the general tone (and if I completely misread it, forgive me) that says “its not going to cure AIDS so go drink some Drano.”
These “fluffy sociological classes” arent going to do any good in the “real world”? What “real” world is that? I think its great to include white students in the discussion of race, discrimination and privilege. Too often is the thinking of such ideas placed solely on groups of color. As if “white” people don’t have a racial identity? As if white people don’t have a stake in learning about diversity and sensitivity?
Who says working class guys must assume the future responsibility of providing for their family? I don’t think looking at one sample classroom is enough to lambaste white women for not taking “hard” classes and by suggestion, wasting their time. As if women don’t provide for their families? As if women don’t engage themselves in technical areas of vocation? You’re trying to break an inferno of a stereotype by just heaping jug after jug of gasoline on it.
“Post-feminist USA”? I hope that’s a direct quote from Rush Limbaugh so I could just dropkick it out the window immediately…but as far as I know, feminism wasn’t strictly a single movement in history. Feminism is an idea, a belief, no?
And finally, the sheer sexually charged phallic symbolism and tone was just too much for me. To promote the immediately impressive yet soon collapsing “hard” military force that you argue to “further national progress” smacks of the “war on terror.” Sounds great, looks great in the beginning, but why the lack of substance? Why the lack of confidence and feeling of second-guessing?
And finally, pt 2. If you really make the honest argument that these classes are garbage and talking about these issues is garbage and women should “stiffen up” to be like men who are doing so much good, then that to me sounds more artificially appendaged “masturbation” like some kind of Excaliburian phallus worship than what you argue these “liberadrivel” women are doing.
Posted 08 Dec 2005 at 11:22 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:
You know what Jelly? The post was about ethnicity, not women, but you obviously have a mad-on about women. Guess what - I possess 2 X Chromosomes. Sounds like that may make everything I say below pointless in your mind, but here we go…
How can you imply that if a woman is college educated she must have wasted time on frivolous courses? Or that liberal arts courses are pointless? Lemme tell you - I’ve met more science-minded people who lack a clue as to world history, sociology, philosophy, culture, and religion, and it definitely showed in their personality and lack of moral development. What good is a person who can make an weapon, but doesn’t think twice about using it on civilians justt to see if it works? What good is someone who can engineer the world’s tallest building, but doesn’t take any care for the socially disadvantaged people who are displaced by the building, or the filthy water that results from that construction site?
There were WOMEN in the class because at the time my college was women-only, at least for undergrad. I highlighted women because women ARE still a minority, not in the sense of population percentage, but in the sense of political and economic power, and at the time, I kind of expected that they would be able to extrapolate from their own experiences and empathize with other people who may be disadvantaged in political and economic ways. We still make about 75 cents to the US male worker dollar. And socio-culturally, are often pressured to still be the dominant force at running the home and childcare, regardless of employment status. That was the rationale I was using.
It wasn’t a LUXURY class, about 1/2 the class were science majors who took the honors program because it was very difficult ot take the regular calsses and still have hours for technical labs. At least 1 person in the class was a part-timer who worked full time, and most of us full-timers held at least 1-2 part time jobs.
By the way, I got my B.S. 6 years ago, I work 40-60 hours a week, I’m a wetland scientist who works w/ engineering firms, and I’m starting a PT job in 2006, likely in the service industry. My single mother “paid all the bills” for my upbringing w/ a PT job at a grocery store and a full-time job as a Head Start educator in the inner city. MANY jobs, including both of my mother’s, do not have to be technical in order to pay the bills. We are in a service economy (yes, even my job provides environmental services in compliance with federal and state laws). So does civil engineering. Doctors and all the related support staff could even be considered part of the service economy. Industry and technology has its place and always will, but to assume that those industries are The Be All And End All Of the US Economy, and By The Way Male, is insulting to everyone.
Posted 09 Dec 2005 at 10:17 am ¶
Lyonside wrote:
April,
The same class also covered the concept of white ethnicity in the US. Basically, some groups of people of European descent (white folks) do retain at least part of the cultural traditions of their immigrant nations. In my family, the white side (Mostly Irish and WestGermany/France) has retained the religion, some of the food, and some of the social attitudes. in the US, once different “white” immigrant groups started intermingling and moving up and down the social ladder (i.e. the Irish were often not considered “white” until they achieved some measure of political and social power, one or two generations in). In the 1800s and 1900s this often happened along religious lines (Protestants w/ Protestants, Catholics w/ Catholics, which is why 85% of my high school class was Irish, Italian, or a mix of the two). Some of the traditions merged.
So it’s there. The problem is that since “white” is still the American paradigm, and therefore considered the normal thing by which all else is judged, and all these ethnic groups got pushed into “white,” there is a lack of acknowledgement that any family quirk or history could be an ethnic trait, but is instead just considered part of the norm, and therefore not as important as being normal… i.e, white.
Posted 09 Dec 2005 at 10:23 am ¶
Mags wrote:
GO girl:)
I just wanted to say that the 2 previous post are 1 demonstrate 1 of the reasons I like this site. People who post take the time to build their arguments and actually construct them logically and defining their terms
thank you for reaffirming my love of this site
Posted 09 Dec 2005 at 1:25 pm ¶
Dallas Nocentz wrote:
“We still make about 75 cents to the US male worker dollar.”
Actually, you’d be surprised at how feminists derived their unquestioned numbers. Perhaps they should have taken more math, and less leisure classes?
Fact is, it’s impossible to make any truly direct wage comparisons to begin with because work time, experience and career choices vary so much between the genders.
http://www.house.gov/dingell/womens_report03.pdf
‘Job choice is another factor that determines the amount of pay. Engineers command high salaries, yet relatively few women study engineering. Teaching pays much less and that career field still attracts mostly women
“In fact, when you start accounting for these differences, you find the gender pay gap shrinks considerably. And, by some estimates, disappears,” Hattiangadi said.’
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/05/10/gender.bender/
And so when angry feminists DID try to correlate wages, they made ludicrous leaps of logic to match apples with oranges. For instance, they classified secretarial work as equal to truck driving - simply because they were both seated positions! http://www.swlearning.com/economics/policy_debates/gender.html
Officially, even the latest government study has revealed the “gender wage gap” to be somewhere between $.19-$.12-$0/dollar - and rapidly disappearing if not already.
‘The average wage gap is not proof of widespread discrimination, but of women making choices about their educational and professional careers in a society where the law has granted them equality of opportunity to do so. Comparable worth promotes a dependence for women, and a reliance on government for protection. Given women’s achievements, such dependence is unnecessary. American women enjoy historically unparalleled success and freedom, and the progress they have made in the past half century will continue.’ - Diana Furchtgott-Roth, April 12, 1999 testimony before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Now, a women’s-only college? Hmm, isn’t that extremely isolationist, sexist, undiverse and therefore liberally-incorrect? Perhaps it’s no wonder they got their factoids wrong in such a Matrix-like bubble?
“And socio-culturally, are often pressured to still be the dominant force at running the home and childcare”
Care-provider, yes. Breadwinner, no.
“doesn’t take any care for the socially disadvantaged people who are displaced by the building, or the filthy water that results from that construction site?”
Well, you don’t need college courses to teach compassion and environmental engineering is already taught as a major. In fact, better technology is one of the best ways to reduce environmental damage - from existing technology.
Posted 09 Dec 2005 at 1:44 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:
> Feminism is an idea, a belief, no?
One of my all time favorite quotes:
Feminism is the radical idea that women are people. - Gloria Steinem
Posted 09 Dec 2005 at 2:58 pm ¶
Mags wrote:
“Job choice is another factor that determines the amount of pay. Engineers command high salaries, yet relatively few women study engineering. Teaching pays much less and that career field still attracts mostly women”
Though I do believe that great strides have been made in terms of women going into the job market. There is still work to do.
In scientific academia ,universities and research centers, (the area in which I work), one sees a lot of women at the undergraduate level. As you go to higher academic degrees (masters, phds, post docs)…fewer and fewer women are found. Pursueing a academic career or engineering career takes a long time (a 10 year commitment really before you will get a convential job). You may have to move from city to city, have to work 60 hrs a week …not necessarily conducive to a family. You can of course work less but that lengthens the time to completion, increases debt…
Thus it is not simply a matter of job choice but the factors involved in the job choice.
on another note
Well, you don’t need college courses to teach compassion and environmental engineering is already taught as a major. In fact, better technology is one of the best ways to reduce environmental damage - from existing technology.
True compasson does not require a course.
Learning to integrate various human-related information into your models does. It is not so simple to say ‘pay attention to the community needs’
We need to teach students how to choose the information they will need.
1 of the hardest things to learn is not how to do things but what to do 1st.
Posted 09 Dec 2005 at 4:55 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:
OK, so the wages ARE getting better. You have to ask, however, how much CHOICE is really involved. That’s a whole ‘nother debate.
>Now, a women’s-only college? Hmm, isn’t that extremely isolationist, sexist, undiverse and therefore liberally-incorrect?
Have you BEEN to my college? It’s catholic, has master’s and continuing ed programs, and is in Philadelphia. Not the most diverse, but getting better. And not ereally that isolated. I went because they gave me the most money of the 4 schools that both had my major and gave me scholarships.
>Care-provider, yes. Breadwinner, no.
hunh? My point was that “Luke” wanted to claim that it was only male employees who worked in technical fields who held the country together and that everything a college-educated women learns is useless since none of them evidently are breadwinners. I countered w/ my real life examples, especially my mother. Right now my husbands salary is about $5K more than mine (he’s a blue-collar B-license driver). We’re BOTH breadwinners, and I will not be able to afford to give up my job when we have kids. And there is still the social expectation that I will do most of the childcaring, as well as contributing a salary.
>Well, you don’t need college courses to teach compassion and environmental engineering is already taught as a major.
I agree, but you missed the point. My point was that “LIBERAL” courses cover many of those ideas and concepts. Not everyone can be an engineer, but if people have courses that help broaden their minds and help them understand and make judgements about new tech and history and philosophy and everything else, then maybe they would be more involved and aware of the process.
It’s about balance of powers and having an well rounded educated populace.
Posted 09 Dec 2005 at 7:23 pm ¶
Luke wrote:
-”My point was that “Luke” wanted to claim that it was only male employees who worked in technical fields who held the country together and that everything a college-educated women learns is useless since none of them evidently are breadwinners.”
I never said anything close to that. Actually, I said the exact opposite. I’m guessing that you thought that “Luke” was “Jelly Button” in disguise but no, it’s me. The IP address will confirm that as well.
Just for clarification, what I said specifically about that issue was: “Who says working class guys must assume the future responsibility of providing for their family? I don’t think looking at one sample classroom is enough to lambaste white women for not taking “hard” classes and by suggestion, wasting their time. As if women don’t provide for their families? As if women don’t engage themselves in technical areas of vocation?”
Posted 09 Dec 2005 at 11:13 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:
Actually, Luke, that was a typo on my end. I was typing and reading way too fast last night. I take it on faith that people don’t make up names, and when I smell a Troll, I call Troll (they usually post as anonymous).
My apologies.
Posted 10 Dec 2005 at 7:46 am ¶
Tru Dat wrote:
“In scientific academia ,universities and research centers, (the area in which I work), one sees a lot of women at the undergraduate level.”
That’s BS. Even at the undergrad level, there are about as many women in math/physics-intensive majors like engineering as prison.
“only 17 percent of engineering bachelor’s degrees were awarded to women”
“In the U.S. workforce…only 9 percent of all engineers and less than 7 percent of electrical, aeronautical, and mechanical engineers.”
http://www.ee.duke.edu/~cec/STHV/wome.html
Meanwhile, the ratio is reversed for liberal arts, teaching, fashion design, modelling and stripping.
Posted 10 Dec 2005 at 12:13 pm ¶
Mags wrote:
To elaborate on that point.
I should have defined the fields. Science is as diverse as any other fields.
Yes in engineering and “pure” physic and math related fields the number of women at the undergraduate level is small (though it is increasing)
However in biological, agricultural and biochemical fields women make up a significant portion of the student population.
I don’t have US info but in canada for the 2003/04
number of students enrolled
56 women vs 44 %men
Agriculturural and natural resources approx 50% women
Math & engineering had lower proportion that is ture
26.8% and 22.8 respectively.
of course these are the number of students studying not those working within their field.
source
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/051011/d051011b.htm
All this to say that the situation of women in science is improving. There is still a lot of work to do. We have to encourage women to see all the different scientific fields as a viable career and life choice
Posted 10 Dec 2005 at 5:00 pm ¶