The Thomas M.Pyle middle school in Bethesda, Md., has suspended five student “perpetrators” this school year who were guilty of subjecting other students to “insensitive/harmful language in verbal and/or written form.”
The principal, worried about a dangerous trend, has written parents, called meetings, etc. All of this, including the suspensions, is entirely proper, even necessary. Two items mentioned in passing in the article linked above, however, struck me as interesting.
First, the school has an “NAACP Parent Council” and two “NAACP representatives.” Is it common for middle schools (elementary schools? high schools?) to have such a pronounced NAACP presence? Bethesda has a significant Jewish population; is the Anti-Defamation League represented in the schools there? Other ethnic organizations?
Second, according to Pyle principal, Michael Zarchin,
officials from Montgomery County’s Office of Diversity were called in to investigate the first incident, which happened in September. They concluded that the encounter was an isolated occurrence. But after another episode in January and three more episodes in the past three weeks, Zarchin said the school community wanted to reassess its approach to dealing with diversity and bullying.
Maybe it’s just me, but I find something a little disconcerting about the idea of a governmental “Office of Diversity” with investigative (and other?) powers. What is it supposed to do, root out instances of insufficient “diversity”?
Perhaps more fundamentally, I think it quite likely that emphasizing “diversity” in elementary and middle schools may be among the least likely methods of promoting tolerance. “Diversity,” after all, is grounded in an emphasis on — indeed, a glorification of — “difference.” The older and now largely discarded notion of equal rights, by contrast, stresses sameness: we are fundamentally all human, thus all the same, and deserve to be treated equally. It’s not surprising that ten-year olds who have been indoctrinated all through school with how “different” people of different races are from each other will treat each other … differently, and not always nicely.
Maybe it’s just me, but I find something a little disconcerting about the idea of a governmental “Office of Diversity” with investigative (and other?) powers.
It’s not just you. If you replace Diversity with the Inquisition it will accurately reflect the purpose of that office.
My guess is that the novel “1984” is not on the reading list at the African-American studies program at Howard University, Morgan St, Coppin St, Bowie St, etc or any of the other places where “diversity” coordinators are trained.
If more blacks read “1984” maybe they would not be in such a rush to creat through criminals.
I also wonder how many males students have been suspended for insulting girls.
“The older and now largely discarded notion of equal rights, by contrast, stresses sameness: we are fundamentally all human, thus all the same, and deserve to be treated equally.”
That’s a sad vision of equal rights.
I would rather be treated fairly than equally.
In your eyes the moral to this racial incident is not that “kids should be reprimanded for racist comments,” but rather: “emphasizing diversity/multiculturalism/cosmopolitanism makes kids racist.”
Now diversity advocates are responsible for racism????
The following from the UN Commission on Human Rights’ “RACISM, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, XENOPHOBIA AND ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION:
Political platforms which promote or incite racial discrimination” illuminates your perspective:
“I. SIGNIFICANT ISSUES RELATED TO THE RESURGENCE OF
RACISM, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AND XENOPHOBIA
A. Expressions and characteristics of the resurgence of racism
1. Political normalization and exploitation
7. The most alarming aspect of the impact of the resurgence of parties and groups with
racist and xenophobic platforms is their insidious penetration of the political agendas of
democratic parties under the pretext of combating terrorism, defending the “national identity”,
promoting “national preference” and combating illegal immigration. This penetration leads to a
generalized acceptance of racist and xenophobic statements, writings and hence deeds. Any
careful scrutiny of the political agendas of traditional democratic parties in many regions will
show clear signs of how the national political agenda can be determined by racist and
xenophobic parties and movements. The political rhetoric of democratic parties has been
gradually borrowing the language, concepts and in the last resort the system of values of those
parties. The key concepts of this rhetoric are defence, protection and conservation. Their
ultimate legitimacy rests on the nation itself.
8. In other words political agendas are increasingly focused on protecting the “national
identity”, “defending the national interest”, safeguarding the “national heritage”, giving priority
to “national preference in employment”, or combating “illegal foreign immigration”. Against
the background of the general trend towards multiculturalism in most societies, this rhetoric
becomes the new political expression of discrimination and xenophobia owing to its two main
political projections: A REJECTION OR NON-RECOGNITION OF MULTICULTURALISM and CULTURAL DIVERSITY [emphasis added] and especially an identification of all those the nation needs to defend itself against, namely non-nationals, ethnic, cultural or religious minorities, immigrants and asylum-seekers. Political, social, economic and cultural discrimination constitutes the natural expression of this defensive
and protective national rhetoric. Its legitimacy is assured by the fact that it is accepted and used
by the traditional democratic parties. This democratic normalization of the racist and
xenophobic ideology, often for electoral reasons, effectively removes any ethical objections on
the part of opponents of racism by making racist and xenophobic attitudes commonplace. The
most practical illustration of this transition of racist and xenophobic ideas from the outer fringes
of the extreme right to democratic normality is the growing sharing of political power by
xenophobic parties and their leaders through coalition governments. The bridge has then been
crossed from a marginal political platform to access to the political institutions of the State and
hence to the possibility of taking direct, legitimate action to transform society. Gradually the
legal system, public order, education, employment and social welfare become impregnated with
racist and xenophobic ideology.”
Doublespeak indeed.
What would you propose as a “happy” vision of equal rights?
Hull says:
I would rather be treated fairly than equally.
Many of us believe this presents a false dichotomy, since we believe that distributing benefits and burdens based on race is unfair.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make by quoting the UN on human rights. I am sure that the UN does not believe in colorblind, neutral, racial equality, so whateve your purpose here it’s on your side of this debate.
The UN commision on Human Rights is never taken seriously. It’s member states are the first to violate its own declarations. For example, it finds no human rights violation in Sudan. Can you guess why?
“I would rather be treated fairly than equally.” And I would rather you be treated equally than fairly, at least if you are the one to decide on what is fair.
“What would you propose as a “happy” vision of equal rights?”
We all get equal rights. Period. We get them despite our differences, not because we aren’t different. Not because we are the same. We get them because they are in a a sense required to protect our differences.
The point of the Commission on Human Rights quote was to show that your movement against multiculturalism and diversity is viewed by many (home and abroad) as a pretext.
The original post “Diversity,” “Difference,” And Bullying” suggests that reprimanding kids for using racial epithets is wrong and a symptom of some Orwellian reversal of common notions of discrimination (i.e. the crime committed was not children using racial slurs, the crime was that the “PC Police” are limiting what our children can say and think).
The Commission on Human Rights quote shows that it is the rejection of diversity and multiculturalism in the guise of “defending the national interest” and safeguarding the “national heritage” (in this case the national interest being freedom to be offensive) from ethnic and cultural minorities (and their proponents, liberals).
Intellectualizing one’s “right to be offensive” is another means of defending racism.
I find the comments of Actus so confused I hardly know what to say about them, except this. When you look at history and anthropology and sociology, you see it’s hard, near impossible for people to stand living with those who are different. The idea of not killing the different ones and giving them equal rights instead is a modern western notion, and Lord knows we’ve had our troubles with it. And we, I mean westerners, are the only ones who try it. Obviously, muslims don’t want any truck with the idea that people have the right to practice a religion other than islam. Look at the tribal ethnic wars in africa. But there is a limit to accepting differences, which is why emphasizing differences is a big mistake. People have to have alot in common to live together peaceably.
We all get equal rights. Period. We get them despite our differences, not because we aren’t different. Not because we are the same. We get them because they are in a a sense required to protect our differences.
Congratulations actus. It took a while but you have finally come around to John’s way of thinking. He only opposes affirmative action when it gives people unequal rights.
“We all get equal rights. Period. We get them despite our differences, not because we aren’t different. Not because we are the same. We get them because they are in a a sense required to protect our differences.”
So how does this differ from color-blind government policies that treat all people the same: Assuring equal rights to all people, who risk being treated unequally because they are of different colors and races, is exactly the goal such policies aim to advance.
Hull writes:
The point of the Commission on Human Rights quote was to show that your movement against multiculturalism and diversity is viewed by many (home and abroad) as a pretext.
And many also view the moon as made of green cheese, a view that is about as plausible as the UN Commission on Human Rights’ view of human rights. I appreciate your mentioning it, however, since I would indeed have to rethink my positions if I found that the Commission, in its current incarnation, agreed with me. The only places that Commission and its acolytes see racism is in Israel and the United States. Rep. Tom Lantos, at the time of the Durban confernce the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on International Relations, described the Commission Durban meeting as a “debacle,” “an anti-American, anti-Israeli circus.” He was being too polite.
The original post “Diversity,” “Difference,” And Bullying” suggests that reprimanding kids for using racial epithets is wrong….
Actually, it did no such thing. I even said that suspending the offending bullies was entirely in order.
“Obviously, muslims don’t want any truck with the idea that people have the right to practice a religion other than islam.”
Now you don’t have to be so pessimistic about a multicultural Iraq.
“Congratulations actus. It took a while but you have finally come around to John’s way of thinking. He only opposes affirmative action when it gives people unequal rights.”
I’m SO sure I described equal protection exactly as john believes in it.
“The only places that Commission and its acolytes see racism is in Israel and the United States.”
That is a pretty complete mischaraterization of the article that you linked. As Mr. Lantos states:
“Former Irish President Mary Robinson, the UN High Commissioner for
Human Rights, developed a clear vision to unify and energize the global dialogue
on race in the years leading up to the convening of the conference. Her vision
focused on bringing the world together to overcome fear—fear of what is different,
fear of the other, and fear of the loss of personal security. In her public statements,
Robinson made a compelling case that racism and xenophobia are on the
rise by tying its current manifestations to growing economic and social dislocations
caused by globalization. As a way to move forward, she repeatedly challenged
the international community to shift its focus away from viewing diversity
as a limiting factor and to discern the potential for mutual enrichment in diversity.”
The paper I cited does not mention Isreal.
As for the original post, you stated:
“Perhaps more fundamentally, I think it quite likely that emphasizing “diversity” in elementary and middle schools may be among the least likely methods of promoting tolerance. “Diversity,” after all, is grounded in an emphasis on — indeed, a glorification of — “difference.” ”
My point; Mary Robinson’s point (who, herself took no anti-semitic stance at the conference) and Doudou Diene’s point was that rejection of multiculturalism and diversity is oftentimes an intellectual excuse for racism.
Sumi P. Cho, a commentator on PBS’ Race: The Power of Illusion, has an interesting take on “sameness” and “colorblind society”:
“I would argue that colorblindness generally perpetuates rather than challenges racism. Certainly there has been a long history of state-sanctioned white supremacy in this country. At one time, colorblindness may have been a legitimate strategy to counteract the formidable power of pseudo-scientific thinking that asserted the inherent biological inferiority of people of color. Today, however, advocates of colorblindness promote an understanding of racial inequality as individual “prejudice” devoid of historical context, thus preventing dialogue about more systemic kinds of oppression. The fact that colorblindness is so entrenched in court precedents, legislation, and policy making testifies to our inability to achieve racial equality while stuck in a pre-civil rights understanding of race and racism.
Perhaps opponents of racial equality embrace colorblindness because eliminating race consciousness conveniently eliminates accountability for white supremacy. Witness the latest Ward Connerly incarnation in California: the so-called “Racial Privacy Initiative” that would eliminate collection of statistics that use racial categories. This “colorblind” initiative would relieve the state of any accountability for racial disadvantage.
Are we ready for a colorblind society? Only if we are ready to deny responsibility for racism.”
Also see: Whitewashing Race : The Myth of a Color-Blind Society by Micheal K. Brown, et al.
White Out: The Continuing Significance of Racism by Ashley W. Doane
Racism without Racists : Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States by Eduardo Bonilla-Silva
“The only places that Commission and its acolytes see racism is in Israel and the United States.”
That is a pretty complete mischaraterization of the article that you linked. As Mr. Lantos states:
I didn’t say Lantos only found racism in the U.S. and Israel. I said the UN Commission on Human Rights, as evidenced by its disgusting performance in Durban, did. I note also that you conveniently refrained from quoting any of Lantos’s blistering criticism of Robinson for tolerating anti-semitism in her conference.
You quote one Sumi P. Cho, who says:
“I would argue that colorblindness generally perpetuates rather than challenges racism.”
You have my permission to quote me: the practice of discriminating on the basis of race perpetuates discrimination based on race.
My point … and Doudou Diene’s point was that rejection of multiculturalism and diversity is oftentimes an intellectual excuse for racism.
And you may quote me again: the promotion of preferences based on race is often not only an excuse for but an exercise of racism.
But don’t hide behind these quotes of UN figures. If you yourself believe that most people in the U.S. who favor colorblindness and thus oppose preferences based on race are racists, you should say so. If you don’t believe that, then the fact Mary Robinson and Sumi P. Cho and Doudou Diene believe that is of limited relevance.
John writes:
>>>”If you yourself believe that most people in the U.S. who favor colorblindness and thus oppose preferences based on race are racists, you should say so. ”
What empirical evidence can we use to measure the level of “non-invidious colorblindness” in America?
–Cobra
Can we get rid of the UN Commission on Human Rights in this discussion once and for all. I have no idea how it got here, anyway.
Look: There is one country where you can find racism, and I don’t mean “insidious” racism, or “institutional” racism, or “epithet” racism, or “my feelings are hurt” racism. I mean one race (Arabs) trying to exterminate and enslave another (Africans), and that is Sudan. When a government official of Sudan is elected to a Human Rights Commission, it’s best to ignore it. After all, how much multiculturalism will you find in Sudan once the government’s genocide is done?
BTW, what exactly was the “crime” committed by the students? Racial epithets? I can find those in hip-hop songs.
Dom writes:
>>>”When a government official of Sudan is elected to a Human Rights Commission, it’s best to ignore it.”
As opposed to a government that has slavery, genocide and segregation in its past with torture, imprisonment without charge and pre-emptive wars in its present?
In other words, why should an “international Dom” take anything “American Dom” says seriously in regards to human rights?
–Cobra
Cobra asks:
What empirical evidence can we use to measure the level of “non-invidious colorblindness” in America?
Insofar as this is a question worth answering (which I’m afraid is not very far), it’s got things exactly backwards. It assumes, ridiculously, that all colorblindness is invidious unless some stray examples can prove that they are not.
On the contrary, the only reasonable assumption is that people who argue that everyone should be treated without regard to their race are not racists. Every now and then someone, like David Duke, who defends colorblindness in one circumstance can be shown to be a hypocrite by virtue of the other positions he takes (that’s why he was thrown out of the Republican Party, a fate, by the way, that has yet to befall any Democratic racists such as the much-honored Al Sharpton and Cynthia McKinney). The burden of proof that one is not a racist does not fall on the person who believes that race is not a legitimate basis for distributing burdens and benefits.
On the other hand, one of the central elements in any reasonable definition of racism is the belief that skin color is a reliable proxy for intelligence and ability. Thus it is those who believe that blacks cannot succeed without special, race-based help who rely on (and whose policies reinforce) racist assumptions, not those of us who believe in colorblind equal treatment.
John writes:
>>>”Insofar as this is a question worth answering (which I’m afraid is not very far), it’s got things exactly backwards. It assumes, ridiculously, that all colorblindness is invidious unless some stray examples can prove that they are not.”
Well, I disagree. What standards or metrics do you use to determine the percentage of people who hold the distinction between altruistic colorblind philosophy and invidiousness?
David Duke is many things, but he didn’t create housing discrimination, hiring discrimination, lending discrimination, or discrimination in law enforcement.
By the way, I disagree with your statement about David Duke being thrown out of the GOP for “being a hypocrite,” because hypocrisy is a common trait in today’s Republican Party, and Duke’s views on race fit perfectly into the Southern Strategy agenda embraced by the party. Duke actually WON an election in 1988, if you recall. Duke’s problem was the white sheets, cross burnings and Nazi party connections. Without such confrontational imagery, Duke was nothing more than a thinner version of Jesse Helms or Tom Tancredo, IMHO.
–Cobra
Cobra, the US has a better human rights record than the Sudan and most parts of the world. Do you see people immigrating to the Sudan. The faults of the US are universal human faults. There is no culture without conquest, slavery, etc. The virtues of the US are unique. That is why black people come here from Africa and the Carribean. If they could, the entire continent would be here. They are not coming to live in a racist hell hole as you would have it. The fact that the US is not pefect and never will be does not mean that it is not better. That is like someone saying to you that since you are not a perfect person, you have no right to judge any one or anything else. Evil of every kind will always be with us. It’s all a question of degree. If you can’t say one good thing about the US, you must have the worst opinion of other nations. But of course you don’t, because you don’t judge them at all. Somehow only the US or only christians or only whites are supposed to abide by human rights or humanitarianism or tolerance. Everyone else can go on the way they have been going on for eternity, and somehow that’s okay, according to liberals
“On the contrary, the only reasonable assumption is that people who argue that everyone should be treated without regard to their race are not racists. ”
That would be reasonable if we lived in a society where race is never taken into account. But since race still matters in health care, in home lending, and in business lending among others, the effect of the “colorblind” position is that we live in a colorblind society only when race may convey some benefit to minorities.
Similar to David Duke, many “colorblind” advocates take a stand on discrimination only when it negatively effects white people. On issues such as disparities in sentencing or disparities in school funding the “colorblind” advocates are generally silent.
The only reasonable assumption is that people who align themselves with those who have historically pursued policies harmful to minorities are likely racist themselves. There are obviously a small number of people who sincerely pursue “colorblindness” as a positive goal for society and do so with no cynicism, but at the end of the day, the company you keep says a lot about you.
“As opposed to a government that has slavery, genocide and segregation in its past with torture, imprisonment without charge and pre-emptive wars in its present?”
Yes, as opposed to that. The Sudanese government is actively engaged in genocide. It’s attempt to redefine Human Rights is an obvious attempt to distract attention from it’s own crimes. And apparently, it succeeded.
America’s past is no different, and probably much more commendable, than the past of other countries. America is not distinguished by its history of slavery, which it shares with virtually every other country, including African countries and Native American tribes. (Slavery existed on this continent long before Europeans arrived here.) It is distinguished by the fact that it fought a war to end slavery, which still can not be said of Sudan.
Let me ask one more time — what was the crime commited by these students? Why do we need the UN to settle this? Why do some people seem to think it is worse than genocide and slavery?
Were they just repeating words you can hear in hip-hop songs?
Hull quotes me:
On the contrary, the only reasonable assumption is that people who argue that everyone should be treated without regard to their race are not racists.
And then writes:
That would be reasonable if we lived in a society where race is never taken into account. But since race still matters in health care, in home lending, and in business lending among others, the effect of the “colorblind” position is that we live in a colorblind society only when race may convey some benefit to minorities.
No, it’s reasonable even — indeed, especially — if race still “matters.” How does race still “matter,” insofar as it does? If blacks get, say, inferior health care because they are black, then policies that forbid “taking race into account” would end that evil, an evil that is only perpetuated by continuing to “take race into account.”
And Cobra continues to ask:
What standards or metrics do you use to determine the percentage of people who hold the distinction between altruistic colorblind philosophy and invidiousness?
And I repeat: I’m not concerned to go off on a search for “metrics” to prove something that doesn’t need proving. I assume that people who say they oppose racial discrimination actually do oppose racial discrimination, unless and until I’m shown some evidence that they don’t. Meanwhile, I’m still waiting for evidence that people who say they believe in discrimination based on race, i.e., racial preferences, don’t believe in discrimination based on race.
Looks like it’s going to be a long wait.
Dom (or Captain Literal if you prefer), “crime” referred to the kids breaking a school rule (barring use of racial epithets), not a literal crime punishable by law. As I said before, I cited the UN paper to show that many people believe that anti-diversity advocates are attempting to intellectualize/rationalize racism. If you are unsatisfied with that source (the UN) I can provide others.
As for the use of racial epithets in hip-hop lyrics, I haven’t seen any school policies yet that encourage or condone the use of racial epithets, even in hip-hop lyrics. If you are aware of such a policy please let me know.
John said:
“No, it’s reasonable even — indeed, especially — if race still “matters.” How does race still “matter,” insofar as it does? If blacks get, say, inferior health care because they are black, then policies that forbid “taking race into account” would end that evil, an evil that is only perpetuated by continuing to “take race into account.””
O.k., in this particular instance of healthcare, if doctors are taking race into account by providing a lower standard of care, then under the “colorblind” philosophy a hospital could offer a solution of “no doctors will discriminate invidiously on the basis of race.” And that would be a great policy . . . if the doctors weren’t racist to begin with (here’s that whole history thing again). Telling someone to be colorblind is no more effective in ensuring fair treatment than asking Osama Bin Laden to be kind to Jews and Americans. Oftentimes we need more than the honor code to ensure acceptable behavior.
To combat racism in this case, a hospital could insititute a policy that closely monitors the treatment of minorities. This would be a “discriminatory” policy in that it would give a “benefit” to minorities and not whites, but that “benefit” would not have had to be administered were it not for the initial discrimination (history).
While it would be nice to hope that everyone would just “ignore” race, the reality is that more affirmative steps must be taken to protect groups who have historically been discriminated against.
John also said:
“I’m still waiting for evidence that people who say they believe in discrimination based on race, i.e., racial preferences, don’t believe in discrimination based on race.”
I don’t believe in invidious discrimination of any sort. But, as the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear, non-invidious discrimination based on race is sometimes necessary and fair.