8 ms·

In the first link, some administrators took part in an anti-racism training and in the second a school got rid of an entrance exam. What’s extreme about either

In the first link, some administrators took part in an anti-racism training and in the second a school got rid of an entrance exam. What’s extreme about either of those things?

barry-cotter 6y ago
The first describes a quasi-religious ritual in which all participants ritually affirm that they are unworthy sinners, racists. Those who believe get the satisfaction of publicly proclaiming their sin, signaling their superiority over the outsiders. Those who don’t believe have their faces rubbed in the fact that other people have the power to make them lie in public about who they are and what they believe. It shows who is in charge. The second is the destruction of an institution. A school for the gifted and talented with no mechanism to keep out those who are neither rapidly becomes just another school. Once the City University of New York was one of the major public research universities of the USA. Then it moved to open admissions. Now it’s nothing special. In contrast Berkeley instituted affirmative action which allows for different standards for different ethnic groups. It’s probably the top public university.
- Broken_Hippo 6y ago
  The first link is obviously against such training (as judged by links below): I can't tell the screenshot is what it is. I highly doubt the information. The second is obviously an opinion piece as well: Being more inclusive isn't "ruining an institution" nor is changing things. It isn't like entrance exams are perfect.
- donohoe 6y ago
  Thats an over-reaction. The first is not religious in any sense. It appears to be an acknowledgment of the bias's we all have as humans. We all have bias's, unconscious and conscious - its part of being human. In that sense we're all 'racist' to some degree and its important to acknowledge that so as to overcome it. As far as the second example cited I think more information is missing before jumping to a conclusion.
  - jlokier 6y ago
    I think there is a fair argument to be made that acknowledging bias and calling yourself racist aren't the same thing. If you're endeavouring to acknowledge, understand and overcome biases, that isn't racism, it's anti-racism.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - kharak 6y ago
    It is completely baffling that anyone could not see the cult characteristic of a ritual where you're required to tell everyone around you that you are inherintly guilty. Seriously? What else do you need? Proclamation of the believe in unseen powers?
    - donohoe 6y ago
      "cult characteristic of a ritual" Thats a big stretch.
      - formerly_proven 6y ago
        Respond with an actual argument, or don't respond at all.
  - ericmay 6y ago
    > In that sense we're all 'racist' to some degree and its important to acknowledge that so as to overcome it. No. I reject this. No matter how many times you or others tell me that I’m racist and can’t help it, and if I just pray... I mean take enough sanctioned training courses it’ll go away I will not partake. Period. Nobody is racist until proven otherwise, or racist until they’ve taken enough unconscious bias training courses. That’s something you and others are making up to deal with your own insecurities and racism. Being uncomfortable walking down the street at night because you see a black man is your racism. Not mine. No thanks. This entire “movement” looks exactly like a witch hunt or the Soviet gulags. When someone is inconvenient, you just call them a racist since everybody is magically, automatically guilty of being racist and off they go. I’m really sick and tired of seeing this crap. It’s ruining western civilization and creating conflict. It’s not even about race anymore. It’s just white people telling everyone they are racist so they can feel good about themselves and create positions of power and authority. Some genuinely believe this, but some also genuinely believe they are saving your soul when they pray for you. I reject racism. I’m not a racist and you’re not going to tell me or others that we are racist just because you are or you think others are.
- germinalphrase 6y ago
  On the first, you’re overreacting. I’ve gone through such training and it was nothing like you describe.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    Did you have to say "I'm a gatekeeper of white supremacy" to complete the training? Either your threshold for "looks cultish" is very high or you didn't go through that kind of training.
    - germinalphrase 6y ago
      I was never compelled to say anything at all; however, it did cause me to think more subtly about racism and white supremacy in my life rather than simplifying it to a reactive good/bad:racist/not racist dichotomy. Perhaps this is all more subtle, complicated, and bonding than the fringe culture warriors would like us to believe.
      - luckylion 6y ago
        As with many things, nuance is important. Sensitize people to larger issues is one thing, creating a cult they have to submit to is another. You can tell people about factory farms without screaming "cow rapist". You can tell people about privilege without spiraling into some racist cult. But that would probably be class privilege, which is much better at predicting success than the color of your skin.
        germinalphrase 6y ago
        Based on the experiences that I - and my wife - have had in trainings of this type, I am somewhat skeptical that any such “cult” exists. There were moments of discomfort, but I was never coerced or made to feel negative about myself as a white man. I have always walked away from these events with a better sense of myself (for good and bad) which I view as a positive thing.
- charlesu 6y ago
  > The first describes a quasi-religious ritual in which all participants ritually affirm that they are unworthy sinners, racists. Why would being racist make someone an unworthy sinner? Racism is just treating others differently based on their race. It’s not weird or evil. In fact, it’s perfectly normal and even understandable. Humans have probably always separated themselves into groups. Even chimpanzees do it. I think that’s what the trainings try to get at. > The second is the destruction of an institution. A school for the gifted and talented with no mechanism to keep out those who are neither rapidly becomes just another school. Once the City University of New York was one of the major public research universities of the USA. Then it moved to open admissions. Now it’s nothing special. In contrast Berkeley instituted affirmative action which allows for different standards for different ethnic groups. It’s probably the top public university. Meanwhile, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, MIT, Stanford, and UVA all have affirmative action and are doing fine. Decades of supposedly different standards haven’t hurt their standing. They continue to graduate a diverse class of high achievers that are well-represented in just about every field imaginable. How does that square with your claims? Are you sure you’re not the extremist? You seem to have an axe to grind.
  - barry-cotter 6y ago
    > Meanwhile, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, MIT, Stanford, and UVA all have affirmative action and are doing fine. Decades of supposedly different standards haven’t hurt their standing. They continue to graduate a diverse class of high achievers that are well-represented in just about every field imaginable. How does that square with your claims? That’s the entire point of comparing CUNY and Berkeley. You can maintain prestige while having different standards for different ethnic groups. You can’t while having no standards. Eliminating entrance exams is how CUNY did it. Different standards is how Berkeley and Harvard etc. do it. That’s not what is being proposed for the gifted school in question. It’s the elimination of standards.
    - charlesu 6y ago
      Fine, the University of Chicago, Wake Forest, and almost all of the elite liberal arts colleges (Williams College, Swarthmore College, Bowdoin College, etc) are test optional or test free and no worse for it. Standardized tests are one measure of academic merit and not even the best one. There are plenty of 1500s reporting to 1250s.
- jkingsbery 6y ago
  The comparison to religious rituals is interesting. As someone who is Catholic, this looks to me sort of like an attempt at a group confession, but at least in the Catholic tradition we perform examinations of conscience [1] and go to confession [2] and we are told to come to terms with what we actually did wrong. You don't get away with some vague acknowledgement of being a sinner. As the Catechism says, "Through such an admission [a person] looks squarely at the sins he [or she] is guilty of, [and] takes responsibility for them." Whether one agrees with Catholics on any number of things (and many reasonable people do not), there is a certain logic to the idea that before you can be better, you have to actually say what's wrong. Forcing a group of people to self label as racist in the way described above is unmoored from reality: even if one had done things that were racist in the past, there is no looking squarely at one's short comings, and there is no taking responsibility for anything. And for someone who hadn't done anything racist, or for someone who claims to have never done anything racist, it's just a show, and things won't actually get better in a meaningful way. [1] https://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/sacraments-and-sacramentals/penance/examinations-of-conscience https://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/sacraments-and-sacr... [2] https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s...
  - saghm 6y ago
    Not to mention that the Catholic form of confession doesn't require you to publicly proclaim your "sins" in front of your peers!
  - lliamander 6y ago
    It's arguably a Protestant heresy (specifically a variant of the Social Gospel) which removes God, Jesus, and the forgiveness of sins.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

In the first link, some administrators took part in an anti-racism training and in the second a school got rid of an entrance exam. What’s extreme about either of those things?

barry-cotter 6y ago

The first describes a quasi-religious ritual in which all participants ritually affirm that they are unworthy sinners, racists. Those who believe get the satisfaction of publicly proclaiming their sin, signaling their superiority over the outsiders. Those who don’t believe have their faces rubbed in the fact that other people have the power to make them lie in public about who they are and what they believe. It shows who is in charge. The second is the destruction of an institution. A school for the gifted and talented with no mechanism to keep out those who are neither rapidly becomes just another school. Once the City University of New York was one of the major public research universities of the USA. Then it moved to open admissions. Now it’s nothing special. In contrast Berkeley instituted affirmative action which allows for different standards for different ethnic groups. It’s probably the top public university.

Broken_Hippo 6y ago
The first link is obviously against such training (as judged by links below): I can't tell the screenshot is what it is. I highly doubt the information. The second is obviously an opinion piece as well: Being more inclusive isn't "ruining an institution" nor is changing things. It isn't like entrance exams are perfect.
donohoe 6y ago
Thats an over-reaction. The first is not religious in any sense. It appears to be an acknowledgment of the bias's we all have as humans. We all have bias's, unconscious and conscious - its part of being human. In that sense we're all 'racist' to some degree and its important to acknowledge that so as to overcome it. As far as the second example cited I think more information is missing before jumping to a conclusion.
- jlokier 6y ago
  I think there is a fair argument to be made that acknowledging bias and calling yourself racist aren't the same thing. If you're endeavouring to acknowledge, understand and overcome biases, that isn't racism, it's anti-racism.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- kharak 6y ago
  It is completely baffling that anyone could not see the cult characteristic of a ritual where you're required to tell everyone around you that you are inherintly guilty. Seriously? What else do you need? Proclamation of the believe in unseen powers?
  - donohoe 6y ago
    "cult characteristic of a ritual" Thats a big stretch.
    - formerly_proven 6y ago
      Respond with an actual argument, or don't respond at all.
- ericmay 6y ago
  > In that sense we're all 'racist' to some degree and its important to acknowledge that so as to overcome it. No. I reject this. No matter how many times you or others tell me that I’m racist and can’t help it, and if I just pray... I mean take enough sanctioned training courses it’ll go away I will not partake. Period. Nobody is racist until proven otherwise, or racist until they’ve taken enough unconscious bias training courses. That’s something you and others are making up to deal with your own insecurities and racism. Being uncomfortable walking down the street at night because you see a black man is your racism. Not mine. No thanks. This entire “movement” looks exactly like a witch hunt or the Soviet gulags. When someone is inconvenient, you just call them a racist since everybody is magically, automatically guilty of being racist and off they go. I’m really sick and tired of seeing this crap. It’s ruining western civilization and creating conflict. It’s not even about race anymore. It’s just white people telling everyone they are racist so they can feel good about themselves and create positions of power and authority. Some genuinely believe this, but some also genuinely believe they are saving your soul when they pray for you. I reject racism. I’m not a racist and you’re not going to tell me or others that we are racist just because you are or you think others are.
germinalphrase 6y ago
On the first, you’re overreacting. I’ve gone through such training and it was nothing like you describe.
- luckylion 6y ago
  Did you have to say "I'm a gatekeeper of white supremacy" to complete the training? Either your threshold for "looks cultish" is very high or you didn't go through that kind of training.
  - germinalphrase 6y ago
    I was never compelled to say anything at all; however, it did cause me to think more subtly about racism and white supremacy in my life rather than simplifying it to a reactive good/bad:racist/not racist dichotomy. Perhaps this is all more subtle, complicated, and bonding than the fringe culture warriors would like us to believe.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      As with many things, nuance is important. Sensitize people to larger issues is one thing, creating a cult they have to submit to is another. You can tell people about factory farms without screaming "cow rapist". You can tell people about privilege without spiraling into some racist cult. But that would probably be class privilege, which is much better at predicting success than the color of your skin.
      - germinalphrase 6y ago
        Based on the experiences that I - and my wife - have had in trainings of this type, I am somewhat skeptical that any such “cult” exists. There were moments of discomfort, but I was never coerced or made to feel negative about myself as a white man. I have always walked away from these events with a better sense of myself (for good and bad) which I view as a positive thing.
charlesu 6y ago
> The first describes a quasi-religious ritual in which all participants ritually affirm that they are unworthy sinners, racists. Why would being racist make someone an unworthy sinner? Racism is just treating others differently based on their race. It’s not weird or evil. In fact, it’s perfectly normal and even understandable. Humans have probably always separated themselves into groups. Even chimpanzees do it. I think that’s what the trainings try to get at. > The second is the destruction of an institution. A school for the gifted and talented with no mechanism to keep out those who are neither rapidly becomes just another school. Once the City University of New York was one of the major public research universities of the USA. Then it moved to open admissions. Now it’s nothing special. In contrast Berkeley instituted affirmative action which allows for different standards for different ethnic groups. It’s probably the top public university. Meanwhile, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, MIT, Stanford, and UVA all have affirmative action and are doing fine. Decades of supposedly different standards haven’t hurt their standing. They continue to graduate a diverse class of high achievers that are well-represented in just about every field imaginable. How does that square with your claims? Are you sure you’re not the extremist? You seem to have an axe to grind.
- barry-cotter 6y ago
  > Meanwhile, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, MIT, Stanford, and UVA all have affirmative action and are doing fine. Decades of supposedly different standards haven’t hurt their standing. They continue to graduate a diverse class of high achievers that are well-represented in just about every field imaginable. How does that square with your claims? That’s the entire point of comparing CUNY and Berkeley. You can maintain prestige while having different standards for different ethnic groups. You can’t while having no standards. Eliminating entrance exams is how CUNY did it. Different standards is how Berkeley and Harvard etc. do it. That’s not what is being proposed for the gifted school in question. It’s the elimination of standards.
  - charlesu 6y ago
    Fine, the University of Chicago, Wake Forest, and almost all of the elite liberal arts colleges (Williams College, Swarthmore College, Bowdoin College, etc) are test optional or test free and no worse for it. Standardized tests are one measure of academic merit and not even the best one. There are plenty of 1500s reporting to 1250s.
jkingsbery 6y ago
The comparison to religious rituals is interesting. As someone who is Catholic, this looks to me sort of like an attempt at a group confession, but at least in the Catholic tradition we perform examinations of conscience [1] and go to confession [2] and we are told to come to terms with what we actually did wrong. You don't get away with some vague acknowledgement of being a sinner. As the Catechism says, "Through such an admission [a person] looks squarely at the sins he [or she] is guilty of, [and] takes responsibility for them." Whether one agrees with Catholics on any number of things (and many reasonable people do not), there is a certain logic to the idea that before you can be better, you have to actually say what's wrong. Forcing a group of people to self label as racist in the way described above is unmoored from reality: even if one had done things that were racist in the past, there is no looking squarely at one's short comings, and there is no taking responsibility for anything. And for someone who hadn't done anything racist, or for someone who claims to have never done anything racist, it's just a show, and things won't actually get better in a meaningful way. [1] https://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/sacraments-and-sacramentals/penance/examinations-of-conscience https://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/sacraments-and-sacr... [2] https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s...
- saghm 6y ago
  Not to mention that the Catholic form of confession doesn't require you to publicly proclaim your "sins" in front of your peers!
- lliamander 6y ago
  It's arguably a Protestant heresy (specifically a variant of the Social Gospel) which removes God, Jesus, and the forgiveness of sins.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]