University of Chicago has a course called ‘The Problem of Whiteness'

[Pommer]

Like an opportunity for white students to experience racism first-hand in a classroom setting. For educational purposes.

...Am I understanding this correctly?

How often do suburban white kids get a lesson in being marginalized?
So, yeah.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Baldwin's point in the documentary from which it is derived is that "whiteness" is a construct that didn't really exist until America became a thing. Before, "white people" as a group didn't really apply to groups of people who were, physically, light skinned. They were Germans, French, Jews, Norwegians, Irish, Scotts, Danes, English, etc. It wasn't until the founding of America when "white people" became this homogenous group that seemed to ignore their own people group origins

It makes sense though. America, along with Australia and Canada are part of a handful of countries whose modern versions were founded by the organised mass migration of Europeans. Those people came together and tended to lose their former national associations in favour of American identity, and being “white” to distinguish themselves from the native born populations. And slaves, in the case of the US.

 

[IceJad]

Take your race baiting elsewhere please.

Race baiting? So you at least know when things are hard to read and have hidden subtext. Because that was my precise point in the very beginning. I purposely write it in a way that had enough subtext to illicit a feeling of racisms. Rhetoric using race and skin colour only makes things worst doesn't it? At least I ended it with that is not a correct thing to harp on. So the fact that you initially dismissed my point about the subtext of the problem of Whiteness comes full circle back to you.

So you can get the subtext of my point about Asians and the other minorities but not the subtext against whites? My friend that is some high level standards of assessment there.

 

[IceJad]

One might think that showing students how their input is not desired would cause them to think “why not”?, and other uncomfortable questions.

What a twisted way just justify exclusion. That the individual need to self reflect why they are unwelcome to participate. What hidden message do you want the individual to comprehend? Is this how academic should be run?

All educators I have been studying under always have a form of "please ask there is no such thing as a stupid question" and "everyone's feedback is welcomed". That is how ideas are formed.

Real educators always I really mean always relish in having people review their works. It makes their work better. It gives them more perspectives to measure their thesis against.

The fact that there are grown adults having this like of mentality is disturbing.

 

[Ana the Ist]

What, exactly, is racist about the course. I want details. Do you have any?

"Whiteness" is just a racist dog whistle for white people.

And I'm sorry, but engaging in terrorism is much worse than anything negative you feel about a college course.

Nobody engaged in terrorism. The student simply called out a racist professor, a racist course, and posted her public email address.

The college rightly decided that he's well within his rights to do so.

I can't imagine why anyone would be bothered by this unless they were pro-racism.

If so (and "if" is justified with skyfox "news") thats pretty bad. Heck just the course title seems unnecessarily provocative. But still, no one seems to be able to point to actual problems with the course material.

I took about 20 minutes to trace this word in the context of this OP. It comes from one of the authors the instructor cites as the inspiration for the course title James Baldwin. If you take the time (and it isn't much as I've said, about 20 minutes) you come to find what the word actually refers to and how much sense it all makes. Baldwin's point in the documentary from which it is derived is that "whiteness" is a construct that didn't really exist until America became a thing. Before, "white people" as a group didn't really apply to groups of people who were, physically, light skinned. They were Germans, French, Jews, Norwegians, Irish, Scotts, Danes, English, etc. It wasn't until the founding of America when "white people" became this homogenous group that seemed to ignore their own people group origins, much the same way "blacks" refer to people of varying African origins whose diverse and specific origins in culturally different people groups and tribes on the continent of Africa were erased by slavery.

This is why CRT is studied in colleges. This is deep stuff and it really all makes sense when you set aside your visceral response to the connotation of a word that you think you identify with or that identifies you and determine it to be "negative." It's way more complicated than that and it isn't what you think.

I love it when non-Americans want to lecture Americans about ourselves. It's quite entertaining.

Yeah?

Which doesn't change the fact that in this case it was obviously right wingers who had upset feels over a college course.

Generally speaking....this is probably true. Self hating white progressives have no problem with such courses and hope that one day it will ingratiate them to black people (it won't).

 

[Ana the Ist]

One might think that showing students how their input is not desired would cause them to think “why not”?, and other uncomfortable questions.

Well one might think that if...

1. The students have a brain.
2. Realize they're being discriminated against because they're white.
3. The answer to "why not?" Becomes very easy....this class is filled with racists who hate white people.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I took about 20 minutes to trace this word in the context of this OP. It comes from one of the authors the instructor cites as the inspiration for the course title James Baldwin. If you take the time (and it isn't much as I've said, about 20 minutes) you come to find what the word actually refers to and how much sense it all makes. Baldwin's point in the documentary from which it is derived is that "whiteness" is a construct that didn't really exist until America became a thing. Before, "white people" as a group didn't really apply to groups of people who were, physically, light skinned. They were Germans, French, Jews, Norwegians, Irish, Scotts, Danes, English, etc. It wasn't until the founding of America when "white people" became this homogenous group that seemed to ignore their own people group origins, much the same way "blacks" refer to people of varying African origins whose diverse and specific origins in culturally different people groups and tribes on the continent of Africa were erased by slavery.

This is why CRT is studied in colleges. This is deep stuff and it really all makes sense when you set aside your visceral response to the connotation of a word that you think you identify with or that identifies you and determine it to be "negative." It's way more complicated than that and it isn't what you think.

It took about 30 seconds to find the course description where, apart from the title it describes whites as a problem twice. There's at least 4 other courses that describe whiteness as a problem in the university....I didn't find any that even suggested blackness is a problem.

 

[Ana the Ist]

How often do suburban white kids get a lesson in being marginalized?
So, yeah.

If we're counting the classroom....apparently frequently.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

It took about 30 seconds to find the course description where, apart from the title it describes whites as a problem twice. There's at least 4 other courses that describe whiteness as a problem in the university....I didn't find any that even suggested blackness is a problem.

No, it doesn't. It isn't "whites" it's the concept of "whiteness" as an identifier and how it's been and still is used to oppress "non-whites."

"Blackness" (not "blacks") has the same issue for different reasons, which I stated above. A course on "The problem with blackness." would be perfectly reasonable and informative. I'm sure there would be an uproar about that too with people misunderstanding out of their own ignorance what the term was actually referring to.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

What a twisted way just justify exclusion. That the individual need to self reflect why they are unwelcome to participate. What hidden message do you want the individual to comprehend? Is this how academic should be run?

All educators I have been studying under always have a form of "please ask there is no such thing as a stupid question" and "everyone's feedback is welcomed". That is how ideas are formed.

Real educators always I really mean always relish in having people review their works. It makes their work better. It gives them more perspectives to measure their thesis against.

The fact that there are grown adults having this like of mentality is disturbing.

Again, I ask - where is this information about excluding white students from participating in debates coming from? Nothing in any article posted except the claim in the OP, nor the course description has that information. Schmidt never talked to the professor and never got a course syllabus as far as anyone is aware and certainly didn't take the class. Where did he get that information? As of right now it sounds like he made that up.

 

[wing2000]

It took about 30 seconds to find the course description where, apart from the title it describes whites as a problem twice. There's at least 4 other courses that describe whiteness as a problem in the university....I didn't find any that even suggested blackness is a problem.

And it took about .5 seconds for you to make assumptions based on a course title.

 

[Landon Caeli]

No, it doesn't. It isn't "whites" it's the concept of "whiteness" as an identifier and how it's been and still is used to oppress "non-whites."

Directly or indirectly? Is whiteness a cultural behavior, as opposed to straight racism?

...Does whiteness include the way we design our schools, our laws, and our behaviors as European-descended traits in general?

...Also, to combat whiteness, is it good to adopt non-European style traits, to fix our current culture, making it more inclusive? Examples might include, relaxed laws or something similar?

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Directly or indirectly? Is whiteness a cultural behavior, as opposed to straight racism?

...Does whiteness include the way we design our schools, our laws, and our behaviors as European-descended traits in general?

...Also, to combat whiteness, is it good to adopt non-European style traits, to fix our current culture, making it more inclusive? Examples might include, relaxed laws or something similar?

Great questions. Perhaps you'd benefit from taking this course? I'm betting most or all of them would be answered or, in the least perhaps, it could steer you toward ideas and concepts that would lead to an answer for all of them. That is literally what this is all about.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

And it took about .5 seconds for you to make assumptions based on a course title.

Perhaps the course title itself drifts into the territory of "bait" and they should've picked a different title for it?

Benign subject matter with a provocative title seems like it could be bait. Basically stirring up a predictable backlash, only to then have the ability to shoot down the critiques later?

If by the instructors own words:
“The class is emphatically not about ‘the problem with white people,’” Journey said.

Seems like it's a poorly chosen course title.

Something like "Racial Components of American Life: A critical inquiry" or "The impact of racial biases in America" seem like fitting titles that don't go out of their way to stir up a predictable backlash.

 

[wing2000]

Perhaps the course title itself drifts into the territory of "bait" and they should've picked a different title for it?

Benign subject matter with a provocative title seems like it could be bait. Basically stirring up a predictable backlash, only to then have the ability to shoot down the critiques later?

If by the instructors own words:
“The class is emphatically not about ‘the problem with white people,’” Journey said.

Seems like it's a poorly chosen course title.

Something like "Racial Components of American Life: A critical inquiry" or "The impact of racial biases in America" seem like fitting titles that don't go out of their way to stir up a predictable backlash.

I agree. It seems like course selection bait for students....

 

[Arcangl86]

I mean it does work in a academic sense though. The class is at least in part about the nebulousness of Whiteness as a concept and "problem" in academia is about things that are not clear like that.

 

[Landon Caeli]

I agree. It seems like course selection bait for students....

Like the Problem of evil..? Kind of gives it a philosophical tone.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, it doesn't. It isn't "whites" it's the concept of "whiteness" as an identifier and how it's been and still is used to oppress "non-whites."

Lol What does "whiteness" identify?

"Blackness" (not "blacks") has the same issue for different reasons, which I stated above. A course on "The problem with blackness." would be perfectly reasonable and informative.

I don't think it's reasonable or informative. It doesn't exist for starters, so there's no need to speculate.

I'm sure there would be an uproar about that too with people misunderstanding out of their own ignorance what the term was actually referring to.

Well we already have African studies, Asian studies, latino/Hispanic studies....and these are all positive things.

Whiteness studies is only ever negative.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

When I was in seminary we had a course, "The problem of God". Of course it was not about God as a problem. It was about the why do bad things happen to good people. Here also I think the course tittle rubbed the wrong way. What was the course actual content?

 

[Ana the Ist]

And it took about .5 seconds for you to make assumptions based on a course title.

Since you liked post #18 where @The IbanezerScrooge explained how we were all wrong and whiteness doesn't refer to white people lol....I'll just quote him...

Baldwin's point in the documentary from which it is derived is that "whiteness" is a construct that didn't really exist until America became a thing. Before, "white people" as a group didn't really apply to groups of people who were, physically, light skinned. They were Germans, French, Jews, Norwegians, Irish, Scotts, Danes, English, etc. It wasn't until the founding of America when "white people" became this homogenous group that seemed to ignore their own people group origins

That might be the literal worst attempt to explain why "whiteness" doesn’t refer to white people....because he's literally explaining how it's a social construct that refers to all white people lol.

Look at all the people who liked that post or gave it the "winner" medal lol. It's as if none of you realized that you agree 100% that it refers to white people.