Search News


Browse Archives

News

Orientation for Whites

April 13, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Many colleges have special orientation programs, prior to those offered for all entering students, for those who are from minority groups. The idea is that minority students entering a predominantly white college benefit from talking about the issues they may face, and connecting with fellow minority students and with groups on campus that help them. The programs have also been criticized over the years -- and sometimes abandoned as a result -- for segregating students at the start of college.

Mount Holyoke College, which has for many years had a voluntary program for minority students in advance of the general orientation, plans this year to start a special section at the same time, also voluntary, for white students from the United States. (There is also a mandatory pre-orientation for international students.) Over three and a half days, the white and minority students will spend time separately and together, talking about race, before they join the four-day program for all new students.

Joyce Holl, executive director of the National Association of Orientation Directors, said that she had never before heard of a college creating a program at orientation for white students. She said she believed a minority of orientation programs have special options for minority students, and that the majority of orientations are -- in their entirety -- for all students.

As Mount Holyoke's plans have been discussed on some Web sites for college students, reaction has been mixed, but some of those reacting appear to think that the idea is to keep minority and white students completely apart. Elizabeth Braun, dean of students at the college, said that the reality is that that two groups will probably spend more than half of the program time together, but will also have time to meet separately as white and minority students.

"This comes from our larger institutional commitment to diversity, and really figuring out students' opportunities to engage with that diversity." (About one third of students at the college are either from outside the United States or are members of minority groups.)

Braun said that the idea of creating the section of orientation for white students came from a series of programs at the college that involve encouraging students to talk about tough issues across racial and ethnic lines. The new pre-orientation program -- with its tracks for minority and white students -- will have the name: "Promoting Intercultural Dialogue and Creating Inclusion." Braun said that led to the decision to add the white section. "In order to have the pre-orientation inclusive, we needed to invite U.S. white students to participate," she said.

While Braun said specific plans are still being developed, she envisions that the first day of the program would have the groups in separate sessions, "exploring their own racial identity and thinking about power and privilege." Then the groups will have joint and separate programs. "We're trying to balance opportunities for self-reflection with creating your connections."

Braun said that the college will particularly seek to recruit to the special orientation white students "with an interest in anti-racism." In the regular orientation and throughout college, Braun said, others forms of difference will also be explored, including gender, class, religion and sexuality. "Different students have different unique perspectives," she said.

The new program, which Braun stressed was voluntary and a pilot, could be changed in the future. But she said she viewed this as a valuable alternative to eliminating special orientations for minority students. "It's really important to us to continue to value what is absolutely necessary" for minority students, she said.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Orientation for Whites

  • Posted by Parent on April 13, 2009 at 9:00am EDT
  •  

    Another boondoggle (in this economy, no less) to perpetuate the diversity bureaucracy and ensure that students balkanize into their victomology-oriented “identity groups” from day one.  This is the antithesis of a fine liberal arts education.  I much prefer Heather MacDonald’s recent suggestion for college presidents.  She recommended they issue a statement to students to this effect: “We recognize you as young people forged from a common humanity. We hope to cultivate in you humility regarding the limits of your knowledge, a passion to overcome those limits, and a deep gratitude for the landmarks of human thought that it will be your privilege to study for the next four years. We are dismantling the college's multicultural, identity-based services because you don't need them. Find yourselves by engaging with beauty, intellectual complexity, and each other."  

     

  • Mt. Holyoke
  • Posted by Jane , n/a at n/a on April 13, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • If the student adminstrators at Mt. Holyoke work quickly, maybe they can find some help from people with experience in setting up racially segregated education groups. I am sure there are some retired adminsitrators from Kansas that administered the then-legally segregated elementary school in the 1950s that the Supreme Court outlawed in Brown vs. Board of Ed might be available for their racially identified grouping.

    We can get them out of retirement and use their experience with establishing segregated factions in education to help promote the 'new segregation' that a large new racial identity industry in foisting on students and universities, because nothing succeeds like guilt and getting paid to it! If not from Kansas, maybe some people from prior adminstrations from aparteid South African govenrment can be brought in to with grouping the Mt. Holyoke students into the righrt classifications.

  • Elephants in the quad.
  • Posted by Bobby on April 13, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • Oh oh. Be careful folks. You are attempting to talk about one of the two elephants in the room for any discussion of race on college campuses.

    "White" society is charged with inclusion and integration of all minorities, even when some of those minorities do not really want to integrate. Minorities are even encouraged to form special "places" for themselves to encourage them to network...with each other! The inference is that if minorities do it then it is for the purpose of ...integrations and it must be okay.

    The second elephant is that all minorities are free from being racist themselves. Not so, and I have first hand experience.

    I encourage the effort, but..."Braun said that the college will particularly seek to recruit to the special orientation white students "with an interest in anti-racism."
    What happens when white students with this "interest" encounter racist minorities as part of the orientation? The same expectation is not there for the minority orientation...as if they are immune to such considerations.

    I think it needs to be made clear that racism from any source is unacceptable, including minorities!

  • Posted by Disgusted on April 13, 2009 at 10:00am EDT
  • As a private institution that already practices sex discrimination Mount Holyoke is free to add racial segregation, but it is our duty as a society to speak out against this and to strictly prevent the use of any public funds for such purposes.

  • Disgusting
  • Posted by disgusted on April 13, 2009 at 10:00am EDT
  • What an utter disgrace. Mount Holyoke's president should be removed for sanctioning such a reprehensible program.

  • What about Mixed-Race students?
  • Posted by Amanda Suniti Niskode-Dossett at Indiana University on April 13, 2009 at 10:00am EDT
  • I believe this program does have merit and I completely disagree with the comment from "PARENT". That being said, HOWEVER, I believe this approach leaves out an important population that may not fit into one of these two groups: mixed-race students. How will these students (in this case those who are part white and part person of color) feel if they have to choose between these two groups right off the bat? While some mixed-race students do identify monoracially, many do not and this will be particularly problematic for them. We must move beyond the monoracial paradigm in higher education and operate from a multiracial paradigm. I would like to know if and how Mount Holyoke plans to address this important group of students. Thank you.

  • Open-faced Segregation
  • Posted by Common Sense on April 13, 2009 at 10:30am EDT
  • Why don't they just take it a step further? It is indeed a slippery slope after all. We could have orientations for Baptists, Lutherans, Mormons, Catholics, Protestants, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Agnostics, and Aethiests. Keep them separated and let them know they're different and the challenges they might face. You could further separate the rich, middle class, and poor. Hold additional orientations for Short, Medium, and Tall people...and don't forget the fat, athletic, and skinny body types. More orienations for Blonde Hair, Red Hair, Brown Hair, Blue eyes, brown eyes, and green eyes. More orientations on Democrat, Republican, and Independant. Doesn't this sound silly? Before long, you could have a separate orientation for each student! Wow! Extremely SHALLOW people continue to dwell on skin color alone, and not what makes us individuals. Our ambition and talents, our sense of dedication and loyalty. Our natural intelligence, and willingness to learn. Every experience that makes us unique...and not part of a group.

    Granting Admissions on preferences due to any protected class is wrong, and always will be. And grouping people together based on some superficial characteristic is meaningless, and diminishes everything they bring to the table as an individual. You can't group people together without stereotyping them. You cant stereotype them without making assumptions. And everyone knows that when you ASSUME, it makes and ass out of you and me.

  • Holyoke
  • Posted by Nonamericanwhite on April 13, 2009 at 11:00am EDT
  • Those who ridicule this fail to understand who minorities feel in a white society with a history of white racism. Some discussion of general differences is good. However, it is true, and it is time to address in the US, the fact that whites of this and the last generation grew up generally tolerant, should not bear the sins of their fathers, and that they have to endure intense prejudice from racist members of minority ethnicities. It is not black and white.

  • Holyoke's whites
  • Posted by retired , anthropology at bennington 1967-94 on April 13, 2009 at 11:30am EDT
  • I keep longing for the day that skin color is dropped as a sorting designation for people.
    African-American works just fine, a term referring to people of European descent could be "Euro" (instead of white), for short; mixed "race" folks could choose their own designations, as so should everyone; continuing allegiance to skin color labels by any group perpetuates racism more than any other common linguistic custom. I agree with the comment that minorities are often as racist as majorities; this is a world-wide phenomenon. Groups wishing to know more about their ethnic heritages should be able to take courses on the subject, not have to be regimented into introduction groups that segregate them from the start. Segregated housing on campus should be eliminated. That ethnic groups tend to cluster together socially is to be expected, but not officially encouraged, by bureaucratic arrangements. I agree with Parent's views about a liberal introduction to liberal arts education for all incoming students.

  • Posted by let's talk about race on April 13, 2009 at 11:30am EDT
  • I commend the university's effort to be more inclusive & racially conscious. But I am appalled by the irrational comments above. Yes, race continues to be an elephant in most campuses (hence the need for critical dialogue), but conversations around diversity tend to include just students of color. Administrators neglect that white students would also benefit from exploring their own racial identity (yes, whites do have a [socially-constructed] race) and the privileges that come with it. If we want to dismantle "college's multicultural, identity-based services" then we must continue to ignore the biggest elephant in the room - that our society remains racialized and power-imbalanced. Although Ms. Niskode-Dossett is also right to point out that higher education institutions, and society as a whole, need to move beyond monoracial paradigms, Mt. Holyoke's initiative is but a first step towards actively confronting and discussing issues of race in this country.

  • Posted by jbh on April 13, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
  • I applaud the steps taken by Mt. Holyoke to help all its students be more facile with diversity issues. I think that people reading this story misunderstand the intent and delivery of this program. I have worked in academia for over 20 years, trying to ensure that students of color and women are fully accepted into the mostly white educational system, to no avail. What I have found is that although I recruited and brought very talented students of color into the university, most faculty treated the students as if they did not belong (low expectations), and many white students never included them in their activities. After much fighting, and losing jobs over it, I came to the conclusion that it was not the minority students who were the problem, but the majority (white) faculty and students who needed to have their attitudes changed.

    As a result, I developed a course to help white students come to terms with a racist system (a system that benefits whites, often at the expense of people of color), its history and its damages to both whites and people of color. This is the system that we as Americans live under. If you don't believe me, just honestly look around you and see if you notice that this system is white identified (whites are the norm), white centered (all white's needs are met), white dominated (all rules are made by whites) and to keep this system in place, whites are obsessed with control. Under this system, "racists" are those that benefit from the system without doing anything to dismantle it. People who are bigoted/prejudiced against others based on skin color or cultural or ethnic attributes of others are just that, bigoted but not racist. Threfore, people of color can be prejudiced against whites, Asians, Hispanics, blacks, etc. But because they don't control the racist system, they cannot, by definition be racist.

    Under these circumstances, few people of color would be able to be successful, were it not for the social programs some universities have developed for minority students and women. So it is important to teach white students that this system exists; that they can do something about it; and that it is in their power to eliminate the system of racism we live under. Until this happens, we will continue to have comments like these (born of ignorance of the system), and people who want to eradicate the programs to help students be successful.

    I hope this helps.

  • Research-Based
  • Posted by Phil on April 13, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
  • I believe the move by Mt. Holyoke is firmly established in the research literature. That is, the need for White students to investigate their own racial history and identity is an important step in being able to confidently understand and engage in a multicultural campus.

    There are many White students who,when asked what their race identity is might say "I don't have one." That level of imbalance, between the dominant culture on campus that "has no racial identity" and the minority that have strong racial identity tied to community, culture, and history is wrong-footed. It creates a situation where Whites can dismiss the need for race-based identity and call righteously for a "color-blind" approach. This approach normalizes the White dominant culture, which is not compatible with a positive campus climate.

    Kudos to Mt. Holyoke for addressing these pressing issues. The dialogue created by these programs will serve all their students well.

  • Dismantling Whiteness in US Higher Ed
  • Posted by Chithra KarunaKaran , Social Sciences at CUNY on April 13, 2009 at 12:30pm EDT
  • Through its new students' orientation agenda, Holyoke is hopefully demonstrating its sincerity and willingness to further discursive engagement on US racialized identity construction, by facilitating discussion on how the US Whiteness System of unearned white skin privilege is deployed as POWER; everyone performs Whiteness in the System -- from the plantation to the Census, to the President, the Supreme Court and the Congress, to the student in the classroom, to the child in home -- and all points in between.

    Hope the international students also get the 'treament' -- I recall being clueless on White racism, the racialized victimization of Blacks and immigrant persons of color, until I got here and had some firsthand, lived experience.

    Remember how Obama had to address Race as a hot-seat, make-or-break campaign issue but Hillary didn't have to? That's the Whiteness system operating in real time. And when Obama describes himself self-deprecatingly as a "mutt" he's performing Whiteness (he's already half there!) in language that makes him less threatening to whites. It's a System, remember.

    Good effort, Holyoke.

    Chithra KarunaKaran
    Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
    Theory of Systemic Whiteness & related articles
    http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com

  • The matrix exists, too
  • Posted by Sally on April 13, 2009 at 12:45pm EDT
  • I think this is a brilliant idea. As the parent of mixed-culture children, it has been an ongoing struggle for them to acknowledge *both* sides of their ethnicity, because it is always assumed that the 'white' side is of lesser interest/lesser impact/lesser importance. For example, during one festival at school, my daughter brought a dish from that side of her cultural identity (mac'n'cheese) and we had hell to pay from the school counselor who felt that she was 'conflicted' about her other side! It was nearly impossible for us to actually talk about what it is to be of two backgrounds. Therefore, putting in place an environment where it is okay to talk, without apology, about every ethnicity, including the matrix, independently as well as together is a good thing in my opinion. Also of note, the knee-jerk reaction in many of these posts I also find interesting. I think if you swap the name of any other ethnicity for 'white' in these posts, it is quite revealing.

  • Beyond Race?
  • Posted by Kevin McMahan , Intercultural Programs at Northwestern College, Iowa on April 13, 2009 at 12:45pm EDT
  • I guess I am both surprised, and not, at the comments in response to this Mt. Holyoke piece. In the interest of keeping an important discussion balanced, I'll take a few minutes to express my support for what sounds like a good though risky effort.

    First, I think I read that both the "ethnic minority" and "ethnic majority" orientations are elective, so any aspersions cast on this as forced segregation (I lived in South Africa and there was nothing elective about apartheid) seem simply unfounded.

    Second, the major error criticized seems to be the inclusion of willing white students in a critical dialog about race in America (or maybe the continuation of that dialog at all?). If the demographics at Mt. Holyoke are as reported, then I think many white students are already choosing the institution for its cultural diversity and that this orientation may be not only a good idea but quite constructive in facilitating the conversation, if it takes the approach of both separate and inclusive discussions.

    Anyone who thinks that those conversations are not already largely segregated (and often un-critical), especially for white students, has not been paying attention. Such an approach attempts to give critical attention to what is different about our identities, as well as how privilege of all types may be dismantled. If that discussion does NOT involve whites nor address a legacy of deep racial privilege and systemic injustice THEN it is most likely to breed ongoing divisions. The answer is certainly not in excluding whites nor in ignoring ongoing inequities that regrettably continue to be disproportional by race and class. Alas, the problem is usually not that whites are excluded as much as that whites are not often as interested in the conversation.

    Finally, I agree that it is problematic to sort students by race for a number of reasons, primarily that it perpetuates distinctions that are increasingly inaccurate and stereotyped (e.g., multiracial identities, students of color who want to blend rather than be clumsily identified by their race, and the assumption that all whites are oppressors). We must distinguish between personal prejudice and systemic injustice. While the former remains a problem for some, I think we err to treat it is the primary issue. The goal should be increasingly critical and inclusive conversations about privilege of all kinds, and in all ways. This can be liberal arts learning at its best, and I am glad to see Mt. Holyoke pioneering in that direction.

  • Go MHC!
  • Posted by AD at AnyState University on April 13, 2009 at 1:15pm EDT
  • As a Mount Holyoke alumna currently working with a mostly white first-year classroom of students, I greatly applaud the efforts of my alma mater. Most white students are never encouraged to think of themselves as such, because white is the norm. Many minorities in the US already have an idea about what it means to live in a white value-dominated society. However, white students are often oblivious as to what it means to constantly be expected to be a spokesperson for one's race, be followed in a store because people think you will steal, and be racially profiled. Giving white students a chance to talk about race is an excellent opportunity for them to begin to think about what race means and represents in the United States.

    The point in favor of recognizing multiracial students' identities is well taken. I'm so glad that these discussions are being taken up, and I believe that the hostility of some of these comments is a testament to the fact that such discussions about race among white people are all the more necessary.

  • White Privilege
  • Posted by Howie Schaffer , Director of Communications at www.CookRoss.com on April 13, 2009 at 3:15pm EDT
  • I wish my undergraduate had a program of this sort when I was in college. As it turned out, I was not introduced to the concept of white privilege until I was 28 years old. I don't see this program as being valuable from a moral framework. Doing the right thing is a very subjective judgment and I would agree with those who would caution colleges to tread gently in moralizing. I see this course and other structured opportunities for reflection on privilege as having a very clear job and career related component. Throughout my career, I have engaged with people from all kinds of backgrounds. I would have benefited early on in my career from an opportunity to examine the beliefs and assumption that I carried because of my maleness, my whiteness, my hetersexuality, and my socioeconomic status. Because I was blind to those assumptions, at many points I was unable to communicate effectively with bosses and colleagues from a variety of backgrounds. I hadn't had anyone point out my blind spots to me. I think I might have advanced in my career more quickly if one of the literacies that I possessed in my 20s involved understanding the privilege I assumed because of my own background.

  • Mt. Holyoke shows courage
  • Posted by Gary Kelly , Associate Dean for Institutional Diversity at Harvey Mudd College on April 13, 2009 at 3:15pm EDT
  • This subject has long been a fascination of mine since my undergraduate days at UC Berkeley in the early 1980's. As a diversity education practitioner, I wholeheartedly support efforts to engage college/university communities in conversations around subjects such as this. On my campus, I've been asked by white students if my office plans to promote "White History Week/Month" activities in the same vein as programs celebrating Women's History, Black History, Asian-American Heritage, Hispanic Heritage, Pride Week, etc., which are produced from the Office of Institutional Diversity. I have always taught that white people are as important an element in the discussions of "diversity" as people of color, and that we all benefit from increased understanding of and interaction with each other.

    While I have some logistical concerns with the approach Mt. Holyoke has taken to promote this discussion, I applaud their non-traditional approach to get people talking about the "elephant" on campus. In my experience, one of the biggest challenges in engaging many white students, staff, and faculty in discussions around issues of race has been getting them to simply acknowledge the existence of a racist system that tends to benefit whites over people of color - not that they, themselves, CREATED the system, but the fact that they do benefit from the system, and that there ARE consequences of this fact for people of color.

    The term "diversity" will continue to be viewed in a negative context ("diveristy bureaucracy") as long as we remain content with the status quo of "safe" conversations which will not produce conflict, discomfort or controversy. While I am not an advocate of "stirring the pot" just for the sake of being provocative (this most often is an extremely counterproductive strategy), I do acknowledge that by it's very nature, diveristy eduction will produce conflict. How we as an educational community handle the conflict will says a lot about our commitment to making real change.

  • Diversity
  • Posted by Mike on April 13, 2009 at 3:15pm EDT
  • Mount Holyoke College is an all-female student-body of approximately 2,200. 1/3 of the student body are either international or racial/ethnic diverse. The College is well known for its liberal arts education.

    MHC also is located in the historic Pioneer Valley of Western Massachusetts. A region that includes Smith College, Amherst Caollege, Hampshire College and the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Better known locally as the Five Colleges.

    For decades, the Pioneer Valley and its Five Colleges have attempted to address race relations. It would serve the readers of this article well, if they read some of the articles printed in the campus student newspapers of the ugly events that have occured on the college campuses or in close proximity of their campus.

    To fully understand the efforts of Mount Holyoke College to place value on understnding our differences and appreciating our past, readers of this article need historical context of the many racial incidents in the Valley.

    Upon reading about the incidents of the past two years, reread this article, and then decide if you have drawn the same conclusion.

  • Indoctrination
  • Posted by Dr. Anonymous on April 13, 2009 at 3:15pm EDT
  • It is simply another form of multiculturalist indoctrination. No-one should be indoctrinated in the sentimentalist cliches of the diversity industry. No-one should be made to feel guilt over some-one's past actions or ideas. Especially since prejudice and racism today come mostly from the minority communities themselves.

  • Racism...the American way
  • Posted by Greg Harris on April 13, 2009 at 4:15pm EDT
  •    I am writing here to express an observation in that I knew a young lady whom was from a very very black father (a Doctor) and very very white mother and she went to Mt Holyoke somewhere in the late 1980’s.

     

       First let’s understand the type of College and its history (I learn this from observation) Mt Holyoke is a conservative all female school located in a conservative part of the country…an Ivy League College for women. One I assume whites have always attended going back to the days of Mary Lyon its Founder born in 1797

     

       Moreover, a very successful stellar group of Alumni over the years and most important a front runner in the women’s movement in America back in the 1920’s. The problem is even though Mt Holyoke has a noble background it s still from a white dominated world filled with overt racism even if the College did or did nor part take; it has benefited from it over the years. Racism could be defined as a system of privilege rights that benefit a majority to their extreme excess with the price being paid by minorities.

     

       Fast forward to the 21st Century and on Mt Holyoke somewhat diverse campus you will find many a white student wondering what gives with those people??  Furthermore what gives with those programs that help them financially or admission based because of their skin color?? It seems everywhere in America those questions are being asked….’why must we as white people pay a price for our ancestors  wrongs  or understand those peoples situations’, after all we won the race war and why can’t they just accept their fate.

     

        The question becomes why must the fight for diversity always go to a level that whites continue to fight for inclusion or making sure that reverse discrimination is not happing (when in fact all minorities want is an opportunity); not to say whites are completely wrong but Black people on Campus at any Ivy League school will be like a fly on some buttermilk or a chuck of coal on snow and if not by seen that way by white students for sure by the white professors. Diversity Training or acceptance training under most circumstances is there for blacks or other non whites to help them emotionally cope and to create a ‘white orientation’ program is like promoting Klanish behavior surreptitiously and calling it something else. Furthermore fighting against race based admission programs or financial aid for Blacks or to create special programs for whites who come from generations of white privileges quadrupled over the years via endowments and Insurance based wealth protection or even just institution racism supported by years of  violent behavior, from my observation is when clearly something terribly wrong in America.

     

       And my friend was kicked out her first semester and lives on the street today…because she was not white, not black had a ton of emotional problems and she is example of what is wrong with race in America…..God Bless Barack Obama may he live long.

     

       

  • Posted by Laura on April 14, 2009 at 8:45am EDT
  • I wonder if it's possible to teach white kids who have grown up in an affluent, homogeneous setting what they need to know without alienating those who have not grown up that way and who have had ample opportunity to think about race and about being a righeous person. I sat through a session on white privilege once and tried to keep an open mind until the ending statement: "So next time, think before you discriminate." Well, I don't disriminate, you little snot.

    I think of my daughter who grew up in Memphis, TN and how she complained to me one day about how she hated sitting through the principal's announcements in homeroom each day. The kids weren't allowed to read, work on homework, or pass notes, they had to listen and pay attention, and it bored the daylights out of her.

    "What are they about?" I asked.

    "Sports scores," she said, "and scholarships."

    "Scholarships?" I said. "Pay attention!"

    "No, they're not for me," she said. "They're all for athletes and minorities. None of them are for me. I know, because I have to listen."

    Now, this doesn't rise to the level of Letter from a Birmingham Jail. But if you want to try to tell my daughter how privileged she is as a white person, or that everything is for white people and minorities get nothing, you will have zero credibility for anything you ever try to tell her after that. She will have marked you down as an idiot.

    And I guess "diversity" ought to embrace the fact that white people aren't cut out of cookie-cutters, nor do they share a common background and set of experiences.

  • Your child is not precocious
  • Posted by Disgusted on April 19, 2009 at 5:30pm EDT
  • Laura wrote: "Now, this doesn't rise to the level of Letter from a Birmingham Jail. But if you want to try to tell my daughter how privileged she is as a white person, or that everything is for white people and minorities get nothing, you will have zero credibility for anything you ever try to tell her after that. She will have marked you down as an idiot."

    You are right, your daughter's observations borne out of her boredom do not rise to the level of King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail." Rather they are the frustrated musings of a self-interested child, and the juxtaposition to King's experience of fighting against the brutal system of Jim Crow on behalf of the nation is simply unacceptable. Your child may have learned to dismiss the needs of those with other life experiences and sets of expertise as "idiots" but I would wager that this isn't the mark of an organic intellectual but rather evidence of her lack of intellectual depth and emotional empathy.   

  • People = Individuals
  • Posted by Dr. F. Gump on April 20, 2009 at 4:30pm EDT
  • People are individuals first and should be allowed to place themselves into and out of affiliation with various groups of other people. What is white? One may look like your Protestant banker, but be from an impoverished (fill in the blank) background. Looking somewhat like the banker does now currently bestow "privilige" unless we are using the belief and identification system utilized by professional race advocates. The latter would be out of a job if we all worked to help individuals get to know each other based upon the strength of their characters and not upon the color of their skin.

    Cudos to Mt. Holyoke for trying something / anything, but as others have said, please don't let your opression theorist trainers force individuals into groups and don't tell college kids that they are either priviliged or oppressed. Life is a little more complicated today; welcome to the 21st century.

    At one time, yes both South Africa and the U.S.A. (and other nations too) based laws and rights on race, hence they were racist systems. Granted, individual bigots may use whatever financial or political or personal power they have to oppress in some situations, but they are not able to use the power of the state to relegate entire races to second class citizenship. Based upon an individual's perception of his / her own race, his or her spirituality or religious affiliation, sexual orientation, social and professional class, health status, etc. they may be holder of more or less privilige than another individual, but let's get over the black / white dichotomy and gross stereotypes people. Can we?

    Sure, stereotypes make it easier to talk about differences, but stereotypes generally stretch, distort, and malign (dehumanize) individuals.