There are times I'd like to be a fly on the wall.I'd like to find out about something which wouldn't ordinarily be available be available to me and which the media doesn't seem to sufficiently explain.At least not yet.Such a time and place would be in the Binghamton,New York university that is offering a training course to it's residential assistants called "StopWhitePeople2k16.Because I'm not at all certain what is being undertaken here,but the title alone invites one to imagine some rather unpalatable things.Perhaps the days to come will make thing more clear.I would hope that would be the case,because when you describe something in what seems to be racially provocative language,a fuller explanation is in order.
Briefly this course is described as having to do with "race" and "privilege"presumably that would be in the context of the undertaking of one's duties as a residential assistant,that is within the residences of the college.So can I assume that this instructs residential assistants on how to intervene in potential racial disputes with sensitivity? Because there doesn't seem to be anything especially inappropriate about that.In fact,if that's all it were,most Police Departments,and in fact most organizations of any sort would benefit from such instruction,as would society at large.
But there would seem to be a political shadow lurking over this course.First,there is the mention of privilege,which may logically imply to reasonably minded people that what is being discussed is in fact white privilege,however that is being described.At this point I would ask just how applicable the idea of white privilege would be within the context of a state university.While I'm certain that there are racial divisions,state colleges,in my experience have generally been attended by middle class and even lower income people of all races.Moreover,they seem to be more liberally minded academically and socially than their private counterparts,though there are exceptions.So,in the context of CUNY Binghamton,is white privilege being identified as a problem,or as THE problem? Is it an assertion of "fact" that racial minorities are being disadvantaged or even abused by a group,namely white people,who cannot experience racism by virtue of some imagined privilege? And if so,is it proposing some particular kind of response in terms of social engineering? I really wish State University Of New York would provide a more complete explanation.And I emphasize here,they are a state funded institution, so some accountability is in order.
Among the questions I have are,what is it you are proposing to stop white people from doing? Without a clearer explanation I can accept this only as provocation.If stopping white people means stopping them from abusing the rights of others on the basis of race,sexual orientation,language,religion or any of the other criteria of human rights,or reasonable university policy,I'm all in.I just wish I knew,as a white person,what it is that this particular institution was requiring of me.Because my basic orientation is to treat humans,of any description as humans deserving of respect.I look at as basic interpersonal courtesy and wonder why such things need to be regulated.
Further,I'm wondering what will be the outcome of residential assistants having such training.How will it effect everyday campus life,and how will that be different than in the past,before the advent of such a course.Again that's a matter of accountability.
Looking at the actual title of the course,a rather cynical thought occurred to me.I tend not to be cynical in everyday life,but it's a shoe that fits rather well when I write op ed.It may even be necessary given the current nature of society.But,in any event,it's crossed my mind that such provocation might well be a response to the current top down debate among those wanting to be American leaders. Why call it 2K16 unless you were intending to associate it with the current electoral cycle? Surely addressing race issues would have virtue in any given year.In that sense,it could mean stopping would be leaders who have long records of racially charged speech,in the attempt to gain public confidence and,thus,public office.Those people,whom I am content not to name for the purposes of this discussion could hardly be misidentified given their current profiles,and I do not limit them in partisan terms.Nor are they limited solely to those seeking highest office.It seems a clever,if perhaps unintended negative response to those trying to rack up political points on the backs of those just trying to get by,educate themselves,and who could do so much more effectively and peacefully without creating a greater problem.And that applies to all races.It is important to consider how one's actions on the biggest stage there is will effect a society already struggling with racial issues.
Finally,I simply encourage State University Of New York to step up and explain themselves.Be part of a solution,not an exacerbation of current problems.Because it may be that I have things all wrong.But that's in the context of a rather thin explanation at this point.
blyndpapaya
No comments:
Post a Comment