“Check your privilege at the door.” “Real men have orchiectomies.” “BLM!”
Yeah, we’ve all hear that nonsense ad nauseam. But just when you think you’ve heard it all before, a special kind of stupid rears its SJW head.
Case in point would be Professor Reshmi Dutt-Ballerstadt of Linfield College located in the undoubtedly stereotypically all-American town of McMinnville, Oregon.
Ahhh… but our heroine isn’t just any SJW. She’s also the coordinator of the Gender Studies program on campus.
Isn’t that precious?
Anyhow, Dutt-Ballerstadt has just published on the education-centric website InsideHigherEd.com, what I’m sure she considers quite the erudite compilation Dutt-Ballerstadt has penned a 15-point list of ‘troubles’ that I have identified to help others in academe recognize your (un)conscious contributions to white supremacy.”
You work in a position of power in a predominantly white institution, and while you claim to be working for social justice, you do nothing to change the white supremacist power structures within your departments, committees and institutional decision-making process.
When your colleagues who are marginalized complain to you about their “oppressive” work conditions, you think that they are difficult.
When your colleagues and students claim that they experienced microaggressions, your response is “I am so sorry. This is unbelievable!”
When you are asked to nominate your students and faculty colleagues for awards or leadership positions, your first instinct is to nominate those that are “stellar” (mostly men) and obviously “white.” It doesn’t occur to you that you are implicitly supporting a logic of meritocracy that is built on this racist assumption that everyone has had the same access and opportunities.
When it comes to understanding your own white privilege, you get very angry if a faculty member of color points out to you where and how your privilege is operating. You deem such critiques as “uncivil” and as not supporting a collegial environment.
You are aware of the many wrongs that you see your institution is doing to your marginal faculty and students, and while you sympathize with people of color and marginal students and faculty members behind your closed door, you never openly confront your institution.
When a professor of color stands up in your faculty meetings and expresses their frustrations about inequity, you go to your trusted colleagues (the next day) and ask, “Why is s/he or them always so angry?”
When you are on a hiring committee, you think that the writing samples by your white candidates of choice are stellar, while what is “stellar” about the candidates of color is, of course, their ethnicity.
You never fail to articulate publicly your commitment for increasing diversity within your institution, but when on a hiring committee you express your strong hesitance to let go of your stellar candidate in exchange for a candidate who you perceive as only adding to your institution’s diversity mission.
When people of color (faculty members and students) complain to you about discrimination and racism, you actively discourage them to report their cases, and often try to convince them that “it must be a misunderstanding.”
You think of yourself as an ally to your faculty of color colleagues, but cannot understand why your white students are so upset when professors of color teach and critique sites of white privilege.
In your institutional reviews for tenure and promotion cases, you advise and critique your faculty of color colleagues to be more sensitive and mindful in respecting the viewpoint of our students. By “our students” you really mean “our white students.”
You benefit so much from the system that you have decided to stay out of all of this “identity politics.”
You have never thought of yourself as an ally to any of the causes of faculty of color and you never have any time to go to any events that they and other marginal folks have organized (where they express their everyday struggles). But you will happily go to an event if Ta-Nehisi Coates is speaking in town.
I’ll be honest, I initially thought of a swastika (Nazi, not Hindu), or maybe a burning cross reminiscent of the KKK. You know, the group Sen. Robert Byrd use to recruit for?
Much to my dismay, this “hate symbol” was none other than Pepe the Frog.
As reported by The Review;
The Linfield Young Americans for Liberty group’s free speech ball outside of Walker Hall on April 12 received attention from students and faculty when a student drew Pepe the Frog, which has recently been appropriated by white supremacist groups.
Linfield College posted a picture of the ball on its Instagram account but was later removed because of the frog’s association with alt-right groups.
“As soon as it was pointed out that the photo included the image, the Instagram post was removed,” President Thomas Hellie said.
The free speech ball event, the first event in the Speak Freely Series at Linfield, encouraged students to express themselves by writing and drawing on the ball to promote free speech.
Pepe the Frog is a popular Internet meme that has often appeared in humorous ways. The Anti-Defamation League has listed Pepe the Frog on its Hate Symbols Database.
The piece went on to generically note;
As a part of its Speak Freely Series, YAL is bringing Dr. Jordan Peterson to campus on Monday, April 24. The group is also showing the documentary “The Red Pill” on Tuesday, May 2.
A student member of YAL, senior Parker Wells provided a much needed breath of sanity to the alleged news article;
“We understood some groups appropriated the image, but any image can be appropriated,” he said.
Wells said his goals with the free speech ball were to get people thinking about their rights to free expression and to bring more attention to the YAL group.
“I understand that it’s necessary to set limits, but I don’t think this cartoon frog is a limit to set for free speech. I find it unfortunate that people can’t enjoy this event because of the frog image,” he said.
The rest of the article was essentially blah, blah, blah… wonk, wonk, wonk, big effing yawn.
But just enough to pique my curiosity, I saw this towards the end of the piece;
“I find both the invitation of Jordan Peterson and the screening of the documentary “The Red Pill” by the “Young Americans for the Liberty” club extremely problematic. Problematic because neither Peterson nor the film will be promoting dialogues about gendered inclusions but rather be promoting a dangerous and offensive logic of gendered exclusions,” Professor of English Reshmi Dutt-Ballerstadt said.
“The promotion of such exclusionary practices greatly threatens “safe spaces” for our students, staff and faculty who belong to marginalized groups and violates our ethos of upholding “mutual respect” on our campus,” Dutt-Ballerstadt said.