I now feel compelled to clarify what I had thought was unwarranted. And I'm just laying it all out, with the first assertion that black folk
can talk about more than race. So let me go back to my original post, which was in wholehearted agreement with Alex's description - yet I was the one addressed and slighted.
To continue.
"Yes + their use of "diversity" smuggles in a their desire to return to their structures of moralism that's ultimately what they want. There's a grave misunderstanding of the idea of free speech. Plus I highly doubt a university with openly racist and openly liberal professors and workers would function in the longterm, especially for "business."
First sentence: structures of moralism. I have to unpack that. I mean preferential treatment to male employees, I mean Board of Regents and Presidents of unis who have more of a habit operating conservatively in states with red dominance that leads to "balance of opinions" rescinding LGBTQ "protections," I mean Muslim students having little psychological protection on campuses because Red Democrats of the University of Free Speech wants to imagine free speech as saying anything without repercussions, I mean student suicides understood unanimously as tied to increase in gun ownership but those people who would never save bystanders in the first place feel the most threatened and demand their corporeal space.
That is not free speech. That is ensuring dominance. It means returning to the exclusivity of voice, because let's face it - most "liberal" colleges are few and far in between, beyond many paywalls, not relevant depending on your geographic mobility, and
students (and their parents) at every single university, private, public, religious have the negotiating power in their idea of what free speech should be - not professors of any political background. They are the customers. Education is not what it was when it could only be for so few.
Second sentence: openly racist AND liberal professors. I suppose this is where the word "race" was mention and someone clutched their pearls. Okay. I'd love to hear about everyone's experiences at US educational institutions, because they are breeding grounds for so many profound emotions that don't just reach the so-called student population. Sifting faculty by a chosen and, arguably negligent, political affiliation misunderstands free speech at its very foundations. Has anyone taught student populations in US unis? Because you'd know that the students have the keys to your failure or success, especially if you're one of the many adjuncts saturating the market, and even if you broach the topic of "expanding our understanding by bringing in multiple viewpoints" (re: uh, duh, classroom makeups are changing dramatically in ways
more than race) frightens students who are not used to forming critical opinions about anything other than their feelings. Why is it that LGBTQ/minority TAs and professors always receive the worse reviews, especially at institutions that are primarily white? Would anyone really feel comfortable spending a lot of time trying to look beyond systemic issues of racism, sexism that are uncontrollably regardless of your BA/MA/MS/PHD/lifeinloans education? If so, that's time I'm not willing to waste and I guess congrats on that beautiful spot you have with the in-crowd to not experience that stuff.
I don't care to speak about the case scenarios, but I don't mean to invalidate them. They are not a conversation I plan on investing energy into,
clearly. But I am absolutely against any legislation that tries to give political affiliation the same weight of race, class, sex, gender. Sure it's relevant, but I'm shocked that Iowa unis (and more than likely other majority-white areas and unis) are thinking of even entering into the ether. A variety of opinions is already a given, but to assume that political affiliation is the legitimate balancer is an old boy's club game (to clarify: re, not you, the legislators). Public unis are grasping their purse strings for federal aid. Rarely would a professor, by themselves, expect to preach to students some trickle down liberal or conservative or radical or wtfever when they prefer to keep their jobs and colleagues' respects (aka, normally professors issue joint letters, not singular, and if they do they tend to step down and leave) and sanity. Can they argue for this? Sure, just like Abbey argued reverse racism at UT Austin where the black student population (because she seems to only view BLACK people as the only other contending race) is only 7-fucking-percent. The implementation of affirmative action is so uneven it's functionally unclear. If unis are trying to hold onto the funding that allows state legislators to keep cutting state support as tuition costs raise, then they are never going to view the hiring process as "we need a trump supporter," "we need an obama fan," and function in the long-run once students wake up to how much their wasting their money at this particular business.
MAN. Imagine if course catalog listings had: "Art 101, Julia Dunie, Black Woman, Democrat." I wouldn't have a job because courses wouldn't fill at most unis. I can only prove this by seeing how hard it is to fill "contemporary" (ALERT, POLITICS) by tenured well-published faculty in my own department. I can't take such legislation at face value. There's always underlying messages.
Written without editing, take it as you will.
