UPDATE: RESPONSE FROM FIRE, Wingnuts unite!
Orwellian attempt at thought control? Hello? You know the planet is fucked up when conservatives are attempting to incorporate Orwell into an arguement.
Editors note: link now fixed.
UPDATE:
Hello,
I’m FIRE’s Legal Director, and I’m responding to your e-mail about the University of Delaware ’s residence life program. Thanks for your input. The “highly specific university-approved views” to which we refer are those that the university specifies that “all students will recognize” after going through the residence life education program. They include:
- “Students will recognize that systemic oppression exists in our society” and “Students will recognize the benefits of dismantling systems of oppression.” (Available here: http://www.udel.edu/reslife/about/narratives/narrative2.htm)
- “Social problems are everyone’s responsibility.” (Available here: http://www.udel.edu/reslife/about/narratives/narrative3.htm)
- “Each student will be able to utilize their knowledge of sustainability to change their daily habits and consumer mentality.” (Available here: http://www.udel.edu/reslife/about/narratives/narrative10.htm)
Now, these may be views that you agree with and find non-controversial. But there are people, for example, who do not believe that systemic oppression exists in American society, and it is not the place of a taxpayer-supported institution of higher education to try—through mandatory programming—to change their beliefs. That doesn’t mean that the university can’t expose its students to the values it finds important—it absolutely can. But what it can’t do is try, through high-pressure tactics and mandatory sessions, to make students agree. So, to take your example, the school can certainly encourage responsibility to the planet, but it cannot require students to participate in environmentalist activities and to voice their agreement with environmentalism—which Is what the university has done with this program. For example, in the Russell complex, the curriculum states that at a floor meeting in March, “students will take action by advocating for a sustainable world.” Requiring students to advocate for a cause with which they may not agree goes beyond mere exposure to the university’s viewpoint and crosses the line into compelling students to take a view that is not their own—which is something the First Amendment does not allow.
I hope this has helped provide you with some greater insight into FIRE’s opposition to the program. Please feel free to e-mail me back if you’d like to continue this dialogue.
Thanks,
Samantha Harris
My letter to the President of FIRE:
Greg,
I have a question in your press release you stated:
The Orwellian program requires the approximately 7,000 students in Delaware’s residence halls to adopt highly specific university-approved views on issues ranging from politics to race, sexuality, sociology, moral philosophy, and environmentalism.
the sentence immediately after this one you stated:
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is calling for the total dismantling of the program, which is a flagrant violation of students’ rights to freedom of conscience and freedom from compelled speech.
Can you tell me what these audacious “highly specific university-approved views” are? This isn’t a religious right school that preaches no sex before marriage. It allows inter racial dating on it’s campus. In fact to the best of my knowledge is secular and allows a myriad of beliefs to attend their school.
Assuming the school which I’m confident I’m right is preaching acceptance, tolerance and responsibility towards the planet, how exactly is this Orwellian?
I’m just curious.
The Donviti
Wilmington, De 19803
Tags: Donviti
On the contrary. It just means you have not one ounce of a clue, dimwitty (as usual). Amazing, considering how you and your co-loons whine about “America becoming a fascist state.”
The collective IQ here is DEFINITELY sub-80. That’s a fact now.
yep, you got me hube a college having an open dialog on race, ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation is so Orwellian like.
Read Fire’s article. It’s not about “dialog”. They define a racist as: “[a] racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality.”
That means all white people are racist. Does that sound like a dialog? Or even the starting point for a dialog?
i read the article duffy. did you?
fire doesn’t define rascism as your definition. nor does the college.
it was from one speaker they had….hardly the entire university or the program.
an idiot no doubt, but not Orwellian.
I guess what DV is saying is that the totalitarianism Orwell satirized against is perfectly depicted by recent Bush/neocon/GOP shenanigans. Just last week Homeland Security staged a fake press conference. They pretended to take questions from the press when all were actually DHS employees. Is there any better example of the “Ministry of Truth”. From warrantless wiretapping to the opened-end “war on terror” the administration very “Airstrip One”. Don’t even get me started on the torture. What great evidence that waterboarding yielded for Powell in front of the UN.
The irony is that these guys have the balls to call anyone Orwellian. That’s the point. But having to explain it to you guys is no big surprise.
You have to “explain it” because FIRE hasn’t a thing to do with Iraq or foreign policy.
The fact that I have to explain this to you is no surprise, eh Gray?
What also isn’t a surprise is dimwitty’s attitude. After all, since he agrees w/what the University is doing, what could be wrong, eh? This is the very essence of modern liberalism, you putzes.
If you examine the staff and founders of FIRE, they are about as conservative as the ACLU.
They are for the most part, free speech zealots, and all the more power to them for that.
The first amendment belongs to every American and shame on any liberal that believes defending it is a conservative device.
I honestly came here, as a liberal, hoping to find one liberal amongst technorati’s listing of who is blogging about this amongst a lot of rightwing nutcase blogs.
Also, the speaker, “it was from one speaker they had….hardly the entire university or the program. … an idiot no doubt, but not Orwellian” was Dr. Shakti Butler, who is a very respected academic and speaker in diversity issues. If you look at where she has spoken, and what she has done, it is hard to consider your comment that she is an idiot to be informed.
I believe teaching about the value of diversity in a democratic, pluralistic society is not only valuable but is essential for effective and beneficial relationships w/i the society. In fact, I believe that education should occur in elementary schools.
But I do think it’s important to determine if Dr. Shakti Butler represents one speaker in a series of speakers or was someone who had sufficient input into the guiding philosophy of the program and its curriculum, especially the definition of racism.
I believe it is indisputable that for anyone to claim that racism is a NECESSARY characteristic of all Caucasian Americans and to further claim that racism is NECESSARILY not a characteristic of all African Americans is intellectual rubbish and is itself racist. It actually is an instance of logical fallacy called persuasive definition. Wikipedia has a good article on PD’s.
Beyond that fundamental problem, which damns it regardless of its further problems, it fails to distinguish between prejudice and racism. There’s a huge difference between them.
Jerry,
thank you for commenting.
I think you will find liberal views here. though maybe not expressed as eloquently as a NY times writer.
Perhaps idiot is too strong a word, but when I hear someone that says only whites can be rascist an academic mastermind is not a term that jumps to the top of the list.
anyone can be rascist. Her myopic view that only caucasians can be rascist is silly and tired and idiotic.
thanks again for stopping by. stick around, I get dumber
Hey Jerry – Thanks for the info regarding that group. I wasn’t aware of it and it certianly puts it into greater perspective.
To Hube – I realize the article didn’t mention Iraq, etc. The point is that there are far more “ORWELLIAN” activities being perpetrated on a daily basis by the “conservatives” you regularly shill for. Blasting “liberal” universities, or defending those who do, is a pimple on the ass of the world. It’s small potatoes.
DV: That a speaker was approved that would promote the notion that all white people are inherently racist (not simply bigots mind you, but racist) speaks volumes about the program. Would you be so happy and comfortable if they invited David Duke or even James Dobson to give speeches? How would you feel if your company “invited” you to participate in “education sessions” that extolled the virtues of supply side economics, the heroic victory of the War on Terror, The amazing job our esteemed President is doing and why all homos are morally corrupt? After all, you don’t *have* to go, it’s just that your manager will make note of your lack of attendance.
Duf – Point taken. The scenario you describe does seem very “Two Minutes Hate”. So I guess the Orwellian moniker may have been earned.
I guess Donviti’s point is that in that setting it seems rather trival when compared to the gov’t torture programs, domestic spying, bogus war rhetoric, sham press conferences, etc.
But again within it’s own context you convinced me that the totalitarian adjective was apt.
Don’t any of you wingnuts think that the FIRE rhetoric is a bit over the top?
It sounds like they are describing a Soviet Gulag or our own Git’mo.
I’m taking the whole thing as satire. I think you might have been punked DV.
DG: Thank you, that’s very gracious. I do not think putting it on the same plane (moral or otherwise) with the Iraq war, issue of torture etc, is in any way apt. It stands on it’s own here.
Jason: Yes FIRE is over the top and alarmist. They’re an activist group and without alarmism there is no push to action. c.f. Global Warmening.
P.S. the other shoe dropped here: http://thefire.org/index.php/torch/#8576
“Blasting “liberal” universities, or defending those who do, is a pimple on the ass of the world. It’s small potatoes.”
On the contrary, is not indoctrination much more critical than current actions. Regardless of whether you like him or hate him, Bush will only be President for another year. Any thing you percieve as damaging can ultimately be rectified to a point. But in that “indoctrination” class could be a dozen Presidents or more. Attitudes of racism sown there could have much greater impact on our future than anything the current administration is doing.
Isn’t that the whole reason liberals have taken over University’s to begin with? They know that no reasonable society would adopt their beliefs, so they have to indoctrinate when they are young.
I get dumber Yeah, we all do. 🙁
Over the top and alarmist? Gulag? I don’t know. When I read the descriptions and examine the documents, I actually feel it is very close to what happens in Scientology and other cults. Lots of peer pressure. Lots of speech control. Lots of thought policing. Breaking down boundaries related to sexual identity. Lots of crap couched in pseudo-psychological bullshit. Lots of pressure for actions by the student to affirm what he/she has been told.
It seems very much different from education and letting the student decide.
FIRE is a wholly non-partisan organization. Our staff members run the gamut of the political spectrum, from liberal Democrats to conservative Republicans to everything in between. The only ideology that FIRE staffers all share is a deep devotion to the First Amendment rights of free speech, freedom of association, and freedom of conscience, and a quick look at our case archive demonstrates that these rights do not know political boundaries. Our most recent cases include defending an environmentalist student who was expelled from a public university for protesting the construction of new parking garages on campus (http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/8531.html), defending a student journalist who published an editorial stating “F-ck Bush” (http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/8448.html), and defending a student who advocated for the right to carry concealed weapons on campus (http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/8475.html).
The right to speak and think freely is a right to which everyone is entitled, regardless of political viewpoint, and defending those rights is FIRE’s sole mission.
FIRE stands ready to defend the rights of any student facing censorship on campus, regardless of political viewpoint, and it is very important to us that people understand that.
Samantha Harris
Director of Legal and Public Advocacy, FIRE
is regents a tax-payer supported school? how about Oral Roberts?
serious question by the way.
check this resume out:
Samantha K. Harris, a Philadelphia native, graduated from the University of Pennsylvania Law School and from Princeton University, where she earned an A.B. magna cum laude in politics. As an undergraduate, Samantha completed a senior thesis that analyzed the constitutional implications of former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani’s quality-of-life initiative in New York City. During law school, she served on the editorial board of the Journal of Constitutional Law. Before joining FIRE, Samantha clerked for the late Honorable Jay C. Waldman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and most recently was an associate at the law firm of Pepper Hamilton in Philadelphia.
damn sam, your parents must be proud.
all I have is this website and geo prizm.
and I can’t even write that well either 🙂
Given Ms. Harris’s thoughtful, logical, and specific response, when can I expect the free speech, idividual rights libbies of DelawareLiberal to offer their non-partisan support of FIRE’s concerns?
but you are an idiot that does nothing but spew illogical, non factual thoughts so we could care less what you expect.
I actually did some more reading on this issue and I do think that the Residence Life department at UD is way out-of-line here. The point of a university education is to figure these things out on your own. The university’s role is indirect – to establish a diverse, open environment for students to learn. No need to force feed.
That said the crux of the argument FIRE is making is specious. Ms. Harris’ opines that some people don’t believe that there are still mechanisms for oppression in our culture, economy, society, etc. Well, some people believe that the earth is 6,000 years old and people walked the earth with dinosaurs. We call these people idiots (or religious).
Our society in general and capitalism specifically have many innate characteristics that don’t exactly level the playing field. (See Robert Reich’s new book Supercapitalism or see Upton Sinclair’s old book The Jungle.) We can work within our structure to address these problems, but let’s not pretend they’re not there.
“but you are an idiot that does nothing but spew illogical, non factual thoughts so we could care less what you expect.”
Never stopped people from reading your posts. But regardless…I am looking forward to DL’s endorsement.
DG,
Comparing people who believe we live in an essentially free and equal society with those who believe in Creationism is an apples-to-oranges comparison.
The Univ. of Delaware program didn’t allow for debate of issues. It mandated that students promote certain ideas (such as environmentalism and the idea that all whites are racists). That is NOT a university’s purpose and certainly not what most taxpayers would expect.
Donviti, did you actually read anything at the FIRE site? They give copious examples of the sorts of “reeducation” activities involved (for example, “adopt-a-rainforest” project or forcing students to “advocate for an oppressed social group.” As Ms. Harris pointed out, you may agree with these activities but mandating them is not the job of a state university and it is certainly not the way to promote debate and free speech.
Shakti Butler completed the August diversity training for Resident Assistants and provided the document with the definitions of racism, reverse racism, etc. that FIRE quotes.
http://world-trust.org/videos/visible.html
I am curious why no one has looked into the background of the two professors who have been quoted in the stories about the program and one of which is associated with FIRE. Gottfredson and Blits are not disinterested objective scholars with genuine concerns. They were embroiled in a controversy in the 90s over their acceptance of money from the Pioneer Fund, a group the Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled a hate group. Their research purports to show differences in intelligence between races. They are explicitly anti egalitarian and you can find one of Gottfredson’s articles (Egalitarian Fictions and Collective Fraud) appears on David Duke’s website. They are not opposed to mind control, they are opposed to any teaching of tolerance because they believe in the genetic inferiority of particular races. Google them and find their work.
Why has no one done any legwork on this?
Oh Geez, Gottfredson is involved? I should have known. That woman is a cretin of the lowest order. Talk about indoctriation…
I had a class with her years ago (Sociological Foundations of Education) and the level of indoctrination in that class was astounding. I think I’ll blog about it soon, but lets just say that I was anti-Gottfredson before it was cool (like 1991). I would rather gouge out my own eyes with a rusty spoon than have to take a class from that bag of wind again.
Thanks for that angle. It does actually change my view of the situation.
Is this more of that Bell Curve nonsense?
She’s the one. I felt dirty just being in her classroom.
isn’t it great when the comments are on?
you get to debate and speak about a topic!
thanks everyone for visiting and commenting.
I can honestly say this has been a great experience. It just goes to show you how the local media misses the point, doesn’t do an in depth research and misses the point altogether.
thanks everyone.
I can now say that U of D is wrong and that a conservative group appears to have been in the right.
go figure.
Though I do believe that u of d’s hear was in the right place.
what a bunch of cocks!
Serious question: Let us suppose that a white male student happens to believe that all blacks are mentally inferior, ought not to be allowed to vote, should not be allowed to mate with whites, and really ought to be re-enslaved, and that this student, a resident of Delaware, is both accepted at UD and chooses to live in a dorm.
The program that was thankfully cancelled would have punished him for his views, or, at the very least, required him to keep them absolutely to himself to avoid punishment, thereby curtailing his freedom of speech. Do you believe that the university has either the right or the obligation to attack his views or punish him if he refuses to change them?
Your imaginary person can be Gottfredson’s TA. She’d love him.
Yes, Mr Geek, but that doesn’t answer the question, does it?
I took a class with Jan Blitz and it was nothing but amazing. But the fringe-prickle of he and
The Red-headed Gottfred-Bot’s bullshit statistical relativism was impossible to ignore. It was in full flame of controversey at the time as well, this was in the early 90’s. I will have to dig through the file cabinet and re-read my take at the time.
Dr. Butler may be a “well-respected speaker” but none of her programs have been peer reviewed in any academic journal as far as I can tell.
Plus she discounts experience and education when she asserts that all whites are racist.