mandatory racial equity class at SUNY

[dismalist]

Maybe we should apply to team teach this one, D. It will be an intellectual feast.

I will of course be arguing that slavery is alive and well in the 21st century. Throw some Foucault in there.

Shall we team teach armed or unarmed? :-)

Cheers.

I would say that I'm a lover, not a fighter. But actually, I know myself well enough. Put a gun in my hands and I'm going to start shooting people. So better unarmed.

Your perhaps joking, perhaps serious idea of presenting intellectual history in this way is not unsound. I'd be happy to have intellectual history like this presented any which way if it's voluntary. No requirement, please. That means it's a double pit to fund this stuff publicly.

The beneficiaries are not the so called downtrodden and oppressed in collectivist language, the poor in language more amenable to empirical observation, but rather university faculty and corporate human resource specialists. Actors, too, judging by marketing changes over the last few years.

"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." [Eric Hoffer] And earlier "Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy." [Franz Kafka]

[Hibush]

"Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy." [Franz Kafka]

I fear that statement is worth noting.

I sincerely hope some SUNY faculty toughtfully consider ways that DEI content makes sense in their courses, in particular if they have been leaving out important details. Perhaps a NYS history class adds more about what the Iroqouis were up to in the 500 years before the Dutch appeared rather than starting with the founding of New Amsterdam. That kind of obvious gap that's often overlooked.

On the other hand, we are good at creating a bureaucracy with extensive box-checking.

What form will that "slime" take at SUNY as the course requirement devolves over the years?

[Stockmann]

Maybe we should apply to team teach this one, D. It will be an intellectual feast.

I will of course be arguing that slavery is alive and well in the 21st century. Throw some Foucault in there.

Well, it really is, esp. in the Middle East, and you could argue everyone in North Korea is a slave except for the royal family.

"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." [Eric Hoffer] And earlier "Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy." [Franz Kafka]

Also relevant: "One begins by desiring justice, and ends up forming a police force." (Camus)

I sincerely hope some SUNY faculty toughtfully consider ways that DEI content makes sense in their courses, in particular if they have been leaving out important details. Perhaps a NYS history class adds more about what the Iroqouis were up to in the 500 years before the Dutch appeared rather than starting with the founding of New Amsterdam. That kind of obvious gap that's often overlooked.

That would be one of the more sensible and appropriate ways of doing it, though even that has a cost - there's only so much time, etc available for any course, so including more content means something else is crowded out (or covered in less depth), certainly in practice. Rarely do the proponents of any such changes acknowledge that something else must be given up.

[jimbogumbo]

"Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy." [Franz Kafka]

The Who certainly believe that. Yet, we always get fooled again.

[Wahoo Redux]

I was in grade school in the '70s and high school in the '80s.  I certainly knew that America had committed uncountable atrocities on people once, and I had seen the infamous plan of the slave ship Brookes (I had to look up the name on Wikipedia) sometime, I think it was the 6th grade, but I had never heard of the Triangle Trade until my wife explained it to me; nor how many human beings had been enslaved until Toni Morrison made the researched claim that it was around 60M in the dedication to Beloved (college lit class); or when the first slaves arrived, or what Jim Crow was, or what miscegenation laws were, etc. etc. until I learned these sorts of things on my own along the way.  I still know that I know almost nothing about American slavery even though I completed all the gen ed requirements for graduation from both high school and college, including American history classes at both levels. Most of what I thought I knew about slavery came from watching Roots on TV.

I had no idea that we placed American citizens in "internment camps" until I caught Farewell to Manzanar on TV, and when I saw it I wasn't sure what I had seen.

My concept of the Trail of Tears is still somewhat muddy.

By nature and by cultural acclimatization, I am against almost everything "mandatory" unless it has to do with public health and safety.

But there is something to be said for knowledge.  I guarantee that, given our current political and cultural climate, these classes will backfire-----it looks like they already are here. 

Rather, I think we might have minority history classes (I don't know about the "mandatory" part).  An objective historical review would expose the roots and effects of prejudice better than any forced "racial equity" class----at least I think it would.  And a history class need NOT be entirely negative or guilt inducing.  Arguing that America has actually made huge strides in racial equality----including the tremendous increase in literacy, property ownership, and college graduation among minorities, the first African American president, and a number of minority politicians, writers, professors, police, movie stars etc.----is a guarantee that certain people will get angry.  But a history class can focus on the achievements of People of Color as well as the support of their allies and the ongoing agon with their antagonists.  This seems to me to be the best way to combat the rage machine and the people of all stripes bound and determined to get angry about something.

[apl68]

I was in grade school in the '70s and high school in the '80s.  I certainly knew that America had committed uncountable atrocities on people once, and I had seen the infamous plan of the slave ship Brookes (I had to look up the name on Wikipedia) sometime, I think it was the 6th grade, but I had never heard of the Triangle Trade until my wife explained it to me; nor how many human beings had been enslaved until Toni Morrison made the researched claim that it was around 60M in the dedication to Beloved (college lit class); or when the first slaves arrived, or what Jim Crow was, or what miscegenation laws were, etc. etc. until I learned these sorts of things on my own along the way.  I still know that I know almost nothing about American slavery even though I completed all the gen ed requirements for graduation from both high school and college, including American history classes at both levels. Most of what I thought I knew about slavery came from watching Roots on TV.

I had no idea that we placed American citizens in "internment camps" until I caught Farewell to Manzanar on TV, and when I saw it I wasn't sure what I had seen.

My concept of the Trail of Tears is still somewhat muddy.

I guess these things vary from state to state.  I can recall seeing pretty much all of this in school, and I'm approximately the same age you are.  And I went to school in a small town in Arkansas.  The "Trail of Tears" passed through here.  You see interpretive material for it on historical markers and at state parks in several places.  There's at least one prominent interpretive marker dealing with it at one of the state's most spectacular and popular scenic overlooks. 

There's plenty of room for debate as to whether these aspects of our history that many would rather forget are given their true due in the teaching of history.  But people who talk as if it's been almost altogether suppressed until the last few years are seriously exaggerating.  To hear them talk, you'd think American history textbooks hadn't changed since the celebratory days of the 1950s.  That hasn't been the case for many years now.

[artalot]

Most universities have some kind of cultural diversity requirement - in fact, many accreditation agencies require it. There are usually multiple courses that can fulfill the requirement, often a more diverse array that you would think. Everything from Latin American economics to Chinese history to African American literature to Sociology of Poverty, and many anthropology courses can often count, in addition to the kinds of courses people here seem to be bashing. SUNY's requirements, especially the first one, are standard for these kinds of courses, and all three of them are pretty close to what my very conservative uni requires of these courses.
These requirements have been in place since at least the late 90s, when I was in school, and no one had a problem with them. All this hand wringing over DEI is just a way to get people riled up. Anyway, if we could indoctrinate college students they'd all be studying for tests and turning in their homework. A little gender studies isn't going to kill them. 

[Mobius]

Went to school in a conservative state in the '80s. Learned about the civil rights movement, Trail of Tears and Wounded Knee, Stonewall, Japanese internment, and others.

It was not a progressive area. Eventually, the scales will tip again after opponents to DEI press their luck and the vast majority thinks they are nuts.

[dismalist]

Let's not fall into the substance trap. It's not, or not mainly, about substance. It's about jobs for the boys [and girls]. I think secundem artem articulated something close.

New course requirements are the best means of creating jobs. There are already many required courses that mostly do this. Lobby for such and no one in the administration  has an incentive to resist.

I read the article and was surprised to find that apparently Artem U also has such a requirement.  There are ~ 15 courses that qualify for the requirement.  All are taught by the usual suspects.

I had no idea.  I shall report back once my uni has become an oasis of peace, tranquility, love, and anti-racists in every classroom, dorm, and lab.

The usual academic approach.  We want to do something?  Create a new course requirement because it's the only tool we have.  The academic version of if all you have is a hammer.....

[spork]

Maybe we should apply to team teach this one, D. It will be an intellectual feast.

I will of course be arguing that slavery is alive and well in the 21st century. Throw some Foucault in there.

Well, it really is, esp. in the Middle East,

[. . .]

Uh, what, pray tell, does this refer to? Nepali migrant workers in Qatar? [Who were never forcibly transported in chains to their destination] Or are you referring to the few hundred million women who will greet us as liberators when we invade?

[Wahoo Redux]

I was in grade school in the '70s and high school in the '80s.  I certainly knew that America had committed uncountable atrocities on people once, and I had seen the infamous plan of the slave ship Brookes (I had to look up the name on Wikipedia) sometime, I think it was the 6th grade, but I had never heard of the Triangle Trade until my wife explained it to me; nor how many human beings had been enslaved until Toni Morrison made the researched claim that it was around 60M in the dedication to Beloved (college lit class); or when the first slaves arrived, or what Jim Crow was, or what miscegenation laws were, etc. etc. until I learned these sorts of things on my own along the way.  I still know that I know almost nothing about American slavery even though I completed all the gen ed requirements for graduation from both high school and college, including American history classes at both levels. Most of what I thought I knew about slavery came from watching Roots on TV.

I had no idea that we placed American citizens in "internment camps" until I caught Farewell to Manzanar on TV, and when I saw it I wasn't sure what I had seen.

My concept of the Trail of Tears is still somewhat muddy.

I guess these things vary from state to state.  I can recall seeing pretty much all of this in school, and I'm approximately the same age you are.  And I went to school in a small town in Arkansas.  The "Trail of Tears" passed through here.  You see interpretive material for it on historical markers and at state parks in several places.  There's at least one prominent interpretive marker dealing with it at one of the state's most spectacular and popular scenic overlooks. 

There's plenty of room for debate as to whether these aspects of our history that many would rather forget are given their true due in the teaching of history.  But people who talk as if it's been almost altogether suppressed until the last few years are seriously exaggerating.  To hear them talk, you'd think American history textbooks hadn't changed since the celebratory days of the 1950s.  That hasn't been the case for many years now.

It might also have been the somewhat reactionary town I grew up in or a lazy teacher or two.

My point, which I think I buried, is that our history alone is a pretty good argument for racial equity if looked at from a "just the facts" perspective.

I've taught several of those "cultural diversity" classes.  I found the students open to the ideas.

[Anselm]

I am still waiting for a good definition of diversity.  If I see a help wanted ad with the big letter D in a circle, then what does that mean?  I think I know but what I suspect does not match the formal definitions that are offered to me.

[Ruralguy]

I think the main problem is that many see this as zero sum. That is (as they see it) Caucasians have to give something up to minorities, and so they lose, and minorities seemingly win just for being themselves.  Its not seen as "win-win," and if thought of in the right way, certainly can be.

[Hibush]

I think the main problem is that many see this as zero sum. That is (as they see it) Caucasians have to give something up to minorities, and so they lose, and minorities seemingly win just for being themselves.  Its not seen as "win-win," and if thought of in the right way, certainly can be.

This is a good description of the dynamic.

The history of those who have been left out of the story is often interesting to those who lose some of their own in the syllabus.

[marshwiggle]

I think the main problem is that many see this as zero sum. That is (as they see it) Caucasians have to give something up to minorities, and so they lose, and minorities seemingly win just for being themselves.  Its not seen as "win-win," and if thought of in the right way, certainly can be.

There are lots of ways in which it's arguable that it's even "win" for the people it's supposed to help. For instance, if someone would have gotten something on their merits alone, but fits a "diversity" box, then the fact that they got it on their merits will potentially always be unclear. On the other hand, if it puts less qualified people in a position for the sake of "diversity", and their performance in consequence is below par, then it reinforces any stereotype about "their group" not being up to the job.

The only way it is an unqualified "win" is if it identifies and helps people who, for some reason, don't meet the "official" requirements but are as good or better than all of  the people who do, so that their actual performance in the position will be as good or better than those who would be chosen otherwise.

That group can't be huge to begin with, and over time, the number of people fitting that description will approach zero.