By Madeleine Kearns
Wednesday, April 10, 2019
When Samuel Abrams, a visiting fellow at the American
Enterprise Institute and professor at Sarah Lawrence College, surveyed national
data on the political views of college administrators, he revealed that liberal
staff members outnumber their conservative counterparts at a ratio of
twelve-to-one, and suggested (oh so gently) in a New York Times op-ed that this kind of imbalance might be a problem
for “the free and open exchange of ideas.”
As detailed here
by yours truly and here
by National Review’s David French,
Abrams was then treated appallingly by Sarah Lawrence College’s students and
staff.
Abrams’s basic point – that students arrive on campus
fairly liberal and are taught by very liberal professors and socialized by extremely liberal administrators –
should concern anyone who cares about the integrity of higher education.
Last month a document produced by the Office of Diversity
and Inclusion’s Resource Center Team at Amherst College in Massachusetts,
titled “Common Language Guide,” surfaced. The document was described by its
authors as a “list of carefully researched and thoughtfully discussed
definitions for key diversity and inclusion terms.”
And what did they come up with? A slew of rather obscure
definitions of oppressive behaviors and structures such as “eurocentrism,”
“heterosexism,” “ethnosexism,” “cissexism,” as well as more heard-of terms such
as “ageism,” “classism,” and “racism.”
“Microaggressions,” the document explained, are “rooted
in institutional oppression” and involve “verbal and nonverbal indignities and
denigrating messages targeting people of historically and presently
marginalized backgrounds.” This translates as insults, both accidental and
deliberate. (Insults and slights are unpleasant, but are they really so
ideologically loaded? Might this be encouraging people to be overly sensitive?)
It defined “critical race theory” as a “theoretical
framework that critically examines the intersections of race, power and the
law” and condemned the view (admittedly naïve, especially given the content of
the document) that society has moved beyond racialized barriers. It described
such views as a deadly “post-racial ideology,” capable of causing “racial
battle fatigue,” which can result in “high blood pressure, anxiety,
frustration, shock, anger and depression.”
A section on gender identity theory included definitions
of “tucking: the practice of concealing the penis and testes so that the
person’s front is flat, or without a bulge, especially in tight clothing.”
Indeed, “tucking,” we learn, “involves pushing the penis between one’s legs and
then putting underwear or tape on to keep it in place. It can also involve
tucking the testes back up inside the person.” As well as “binding: a method
reducing or flattening the appearance of one’s chest” by which the author
clearly means breasts belonging to a female.
Think such practices sound uncomfortable and unhealthy?
Worry that obsessing about students’ genitals is odd? Be careful. That might
count as “transphobia.”
Gender identity also covered new terms such as “boi:
masculine-presenting queer black women whose gender presentation can be more
fluid and/or androgynous than completely masculine.” The heading “sexual and
romantic identity” included definitions of “BDSM,” “demisexual,”
“demiromantic,” all framed positively or neutrally, while “heterosexual
privilege” was named as another sin.
The document is far more preoccupied with students’ love
lives than with wider society. However it does briefly touch upon economics,
politics, and culture by leaving room to explain that “capitalism” is “an
economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are
controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. This system
leads to exploitative labor practices, which affect marginalized groups
disproportionately.” And “American exceptionalism” is also immoral. And
adopting the hairstyles of marginalized groups might constitute “cultural
appropriation.”
As one might expect, some found this document to be
rather overreaching. Brantley Mayers of Amherst College Republicans told the Boston Herald that the college was
unacceptably “establishing the parameters of speech.” After backlash, the
college president, Biddy Martin, explained in a letter that she was “not aware”
that the document had been produced, she agreed that it was “problematic,” and
it was promptly retracted. Her full letter can be read here.
Norm Jones, the college’s chief diversity and inclusion
officer, wrote in a statement that the goal was simply “to help create greater
awareness of the ways many people at Amherst and beyond understand their own
identities.” He also admitted that “it was a mistake to send it from my office
to the entire community because of the implication that the guide is meant to
dictate speech and expression or ideology on campus.”
Hmm.
Just as Abrams’s research raises a serious point about
the kinds of socialization young people might undergo when they arrive on campus,
this episode at Amherst College makes one wonder what, exactly, is the
influence of “diversity” and “inclusion” officers? Do they create a welcoming
and fertile learning environment for all students (as I’m sure they intend to)
or do they facilitate their indoctrination, fill their heads with toxic
nonsense, and slam their minds shut?
No comments:
Post a Comment