racist

Millions of people have now seen the video of the USC political science professor calling Republicans stupid and racist, referring to them as losers and “old white guys,” and accusing them of voter fraud while appearing to advocate using voter fraud to defeat them. Fox News’ The Five opened their show with it earlier this week and the outcry (in the non-mainstream media at least) has been significant.

I’ve watched this unfold with great interest because I took that exact class, from that exact professor, just a couple of years ago. Darry Sragow was also my professor. But my class experience was a little different – and the reason it was different is the reason I am not particularly outraged by this incident, nor do I wish to see Professor Sragow censured.

I’m not outraged because I agree with the professor. On the contrary, as a conservative and a former board member of the USC College Republicans, I find his comments both false and insulting. Should he have expressed his views that way? No – I think it shows a lack of respect and certainly does not reach the standard of civil discourse.

That being said – I am more disturbed by the behavior of the students in the class. And I’m actually not talking about the ones who are laughing and agreeing with his offensive and off-target sentiments. Students parroting left-leaning professors is almost as predictable as the fact that almost all professors are left-leaning. But I’m talking about the ones who do not agree with him. And we know there was at least one student who didn’t agree, because that student, Tyler Talgo, recorded Sragow’s shenanigans throughout the entire semester and then compiled the 15-minute clip, which went viral. And Talgo may not have been the only one, either – in my experience, there is often more than one student who sees things differently.

Although I understand Talgo’s reluctance to challenge Sragow, I submit that this is where he went wrong. Because while Sragow’s comments are certainly offensive, nobody in the class challenged him – and this itself is an even bigger problem than indoctrination, at least at the college level (teachers of minor children is a different issue).

As I said, biased professors are absolutely de rigeuer at almost every college or university – and I would argue that for conservative students, that bias in and of itself isn’t always bad. College is a wonderful place to gain exposure to alternative viewpoints, because it gives you an opportunity to think about what you believe, as well as an opportunity to hone your debate skills. (This, I might add, is an opportunity left-wing students will never have!)

I argued with Professor Sragow in almost every class session. I challenged him so often that when he made certain types of statements people laughed and looked at me, knowing that I’d have a response and an argument. So in my class, alternative viewpoints were debated. I also should point out that Professor Sragow, despite his obvious partisanship, always welcomed that debate and discussion, and regarded my comments with a dry sense of humor. I realize, again, that some students may not be comfortable in such a situation – but conservative students need to understand that when they refuse to challenge faulty thinking, they’re letting only the wrong viewpoint be heard. It is crucial for us to speak up – it is crucial for us to challenge this type of rhetoric.

Had Professor Sragow punished me for speaking up, or given me a lesser grade, then a line would have been crossed. And there are methods for dealing with that kind of unfair academic practice. But whether he responded inappropriately to my challenges or not, I still had the responsibility to speak up. (He did not, by the way, grade me unfairly.)

What struck me about that video – and I think it struck a lot of people – was how unpleasant that classroom environment would have been for someone who didn’t agree with the professor. But I am living proof that it didn’t have to be that way. Our class did not have that same oppressive atmosphere, because our ideas – the ideas of limited government, personal responsibility, individual liberty – were brought to the table. We must put them out there in this kind of environment. (And sometimes when one student is brave enough to speak up, another one or two conservatives – or at least non-liberals – will join in!)

The idea that a professor should be reprimanded for something he said, with very rare exceptions, is wrong. Punishing a professor for inflammatory statements (true or not) is just another form of censorship. The entire idea of dialogue and debate is a conservative principle, as is defending free speech – even when we don’t like it. But I can’t help but think how different this classroom’s experience of these issues would have been if someone had just challenged Professor Sragow’s ridiculous assertions. It’s not about winning an argument with the professor – it’s about letting your classmates know that there is another way to see things.

Fix Contributor Emily Schrader graduated from the University of Southern California. She currently attends graduate school at Tel Aviv University in Israel.

Watch the original video:

Click here to Like The College Fix on Facebook.

Twitter: @CollegeFix

(Image by dinkeyhotey/flickr)

{ 0 comments }

Campus Reform on Wednesday published a video secretly taped by a student last year inside a classroom that shows a USC professor railing against Republicans in a variety of ways, describing them as old, white, racist and losers.

Campus Reform reports:

In a 15 min. video secretly captured by USC student Tyler Talgo, political science Professor Darry Sragow also appears to endorse the illegal suppression of Republican votes.

“You lose their information on the election in the mail,” he suggested when a student asked him how to keep Republicans from voting. “I mean there is lots of ways to do it [SIC].”

A teaching assistant (TA), who also appeared to work for the university, then seemed to suggest Black Panthers could be placed at polling stations to intimidate Republican voters.

Rather than rebuking the TA, Sragow appeared to confirm the suggestion.

“Yeah, yeah,” he said. “You can do that.”

Neither a spokesperson for USC, or professor Sragow, responded to multiple requests from Campus Reform seeking comment.

Read more.

Watch the video:

{ 0 comments }

A recent Muslim prayer service at Cornell University has sparked concern and anger among students, who say the sermon was insulting and racist.

Attendees told The Cornell Daily Sun the sermon was “laden with racial and homophobic slurs.”

“Not all homosexuals are pedophiles, but all pedophiles are homosexuals,” the individual said, according to Ihsan Kabir ’14, president of the Committee for the Advancement of Muslim Culture.

The individual … then shouted remarks targeting the LGBTQ community, criticizing President Barack Obama for “being too liberal” in his acceptance of homosexuality.

“Homosexuals are freaks and queers who want a pink earth,” the individual said, according to Kabir.

Not only did the individual target the LGBTQ community, but he also criticized how some Muslim women take off their hijab, or head scarf, after praying, according to Kabir.

“Women are dressing like men, but are naked at the same time,” the speaker said.

The article on the sermon was published today in The Sun. It states that the speaker – whom the paper does not name – is a former university employee.

Click here to read the full article in The Cornell Daily Sun.

CLICK HERE to Like The College Fix on Facebook.

{ 0 comments }

A recent full-page ad in MIT’s The Tech student newspaper that sought an Asian egg donor with a high grade-point average has drawn the ire of two campus feminist groups, who in an op-ed called it racist, sexist, misleading, and said it promotes stereotypes.

But their complaints prompted a backlash of criticism from several students and alumni who posted anonymous online comments about the women’s guest column, saying their complaints – published this week - were hypocritical and wrong.

“I think it is you who is being sexist by wishing to deny women the right to make their own choices,” one commenter argued. “Your attempt to ‘protect’ women seems to me replete with overtones from a regime that women seek to overthrow every day.”

Stated another: “As a recent alum and current medical student who is hoping to donate her own eggs in future, I hope everyone also considers the altruism also involved in these processes. … Is it bad, as an MIT educated female, to WANT to give eggs to a couple who would clearly appreciate and nurture the traits I might be able to pass on?”

The comments were prompted by the guest column written on behalf of the executive boards of Graduate Women at MIT (GWAMIT) and Feminists@MIT.

“The ad reeks of privilege and ignorance, as a couple seeks to manufacture its dream baby by placing all hope on a stereotype,” it stated. “We wrote this … to highlight the racist and sexist roots of the ad, protest its placement in The Tech, and to expose the creator’s offensive posting. The capitalist system we live in allows people to place a market value on a product they desire — in this case the eggs of an imagined, Ivy League, perfect-SAT-scoring, 21-year-old Asian woman.”

The op-ed goes on to state:

The posters of the ad specifically demand an Asian woman, preferably Chinese, who will fit their bill. Under this system, the onus is on an individual, in this case a young college student, to take care of herself financially through supposed “choice” — that is, choose from a position of financial vulnerability (the position of so many students) to do something that would otherwise be unthinkable. We should not tolerate a system that permits racial profiling for the benefit of those with wealth, while dumping responsibility upon those with less power.

What is not mentioned in the ad is the highly hazardous health consequence such a young woman would face were she to go through this procedure. … It is a sad reminder of a long history of the sexualization, stereotyping, and objectification of Asian women. … This couple’s ad perpetuates a line of “race thinking” — racism under the guise of science.

… Furthermore, even the most cursory Internet sleuthing shows that this ad may not be quite what it seems. … The ad’s author … may not be who he claims … (a white man and Chinese woman couple seeking to have a child), not to mention the blatant racism, classism, and sexism in his preference for sperm recipients and his creation of a noticeably egotistical sperm donation program. …

It is inappropriate for a university publication to publish a solicitation for student egg donations from anything other than a licensed clinic, let alone an apparently unverified private individual. To put it succinctly, a school newspaper is not the place for this kind of advertisement.

But one online commenter noted that “in March 2012, The Tech ran a much smaller (and less prominent) ad seeking a woman ‘intelligent, attractive, healthy, and under the age of 28 with a tall/lean/athletic body type,’ for $25,000 plus expenses. That ad ran five times, or so it seems from a cursory look.”

And nary a peep from MIT feminists.

Another responder argued: “This letter is a huge and lengthy overreaction by someone who seems to be pretty thin-skinned. The ad was by an Asian couple who quite reasonably want to ensure that they have the best chance of having a smart and accomplished kid. Being Asian they are naturally looking for a smart Asian woman which is reflected in the title; how on earth is this stereotyping?”

Said another: “Selecting an egg donor, much like selecting a life mate is an incredibly personal decision that shouldn’t be judged by you or anyone else in the world.”

The comments prompted one of the column’s authors to further defend their position.

“I ask that we please consider the economy within which people make choices: a privileged couple (privileged in economic-racial-gendered ways) ‘choosing’ to pay for an egg donor and the harvesting process; a young woman ‘choosing’ to have her eggs harvested,” she stated. “How do people come to the point at which they make these choices? It is precisely the illusion of ‘choice’ that we wish to destabilize.”

“I do HOPE that our community members at MIT take notice of omnipresent demands/ads like this that highlight how very raced, gendered, and imbalanced our local world is.”

Click here to read the entire guest column, plus its comments.

Click here to Like The College Fix on Facebook.

IMAGE: Faungg/Flickr

{ 2 comments }

A college in Utah that’s 102-years-old, Dixie State College, is expected to become a full-fledged university in the coming months, and with that comes an official name change.

But whether that name will continue the tradition with “Dixie University” remains to be seen.

Many folks in the Southwest Utah region, where the college is located, say the name Dixie simply honors the state’s past and its settlers. Meanwhile, the Salt Lake City chapter of the NAACP is totally against it.

An article by Ben Winslow, a reporter with a Fox News affiliate in the area, reported this week on the ongoing controversy:

Discussion about changing the school’s name when it gains university status has brought heated debate at recent public meetings. Supporters of “Dixie” say it is an integral part of southern Utah’s history — Mormon pioneers used the term when they settled in the area to grow cotton. …

… The word “Dixie” appears on many businesses and landmarks in the Washington County area, from Dixie Regional Medical Center to the Dixie Palms Motel on the St. George Boulevard. The word “Dixie” is lit up at night on a red rock cliffside overlooking the city. …

Opponents claim the school has a history of racism. They point to pictures in Dixie College’s yearbook — titled “The Confederate” — that show Homecoming Queens carrying the Confederate flag, the old mascot “The Rebel,” and white people performing school skits in “blackface.”

A few weeks ago, a statue of a confederate soldier was finally removed from campus. Opponents cheered while some alumni were incensed.

… Says St. George Mayor Dan McArthur: “… Dixie is a place, and in this place, it happens to be southwest Utah and we’re proud of the fact that we are called Dixie.”

The Salt Lake Chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is now weighing in on the controversy. … President Jeanetta Williams said their board voted to support removing the name “Dixie” from the school. … (She) said she believes Utah’s “Dixie” is still too tied to the Civil War, slavery and racism.

“We feel that the name Dixie should be removed and that they could come up with another name other than Dixie,” she said. “We would support St. George University. We would support even Red Rock, because of the red rock there in the area. Any other name other than the name Dixie.”

Click here to read the full article.

Click here to Like The College Fix on Facebook.

 

{ 7 comments }

Several professors across the nation have dismissed efforts by more than 500,000 Americans to secede from the U.S., labeling petitioners as emotional, even “idiots,” and likening the movement to a fairy tale. One professor even implied the effort is racist.

Dr. Brian Ellison, chairman of Appalachian State University’s Department of Government and Justice Studies, told The College Fix in an email that “these people are idiots. Mostly they have no understanding of how government works and they’re caught up in a make believe world created by Fox News.”

He is not alone. Several other professors who have opined about the effort disregarded the petitions as simply emotional reactions to President Barack Obama’s re-election, according to various news reports.

One scholar has even gone so far as to imply those who signed the petitions to secede from America as a result of last week’s presidential election are racist, in that they’re unhappy with a black President.

Dr. Art English, science professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, told reporter Dustin Barnes (of Fox affiliate KLRT) that “it’s hard to tell if it’s strictly Obama’s policies or his race that led to this bold petition.”

Another college educator claimed the petitions run afoul of constitutional law.

“It’s not really legal,” Ken Collier, a political science professor at Stephen F. Austen State University, told ABC news affiliate KTRE. “We joined the Union under the terms everybody else did.”

Collier said he believes people are just upset over the election, and they’ll simmer down.

“I think you’ll see this die down pretty quickly,” the Texas professor was quoted as saying. “People want to secede, people want to move to Canada, or whatever, but in the end they step back, reflect and understand how much they love their country and how much they would give away if they moved away.”

McMurray University history professor Don Frazier cited similar reasoning for the petitions, focusing instead on what would happen if secession were granted in an interview published by the Abilene Reporter-News.

“Do you want the tyranny of Washington or the tyranny of Austin? If you secede, the new capital isn’t going to be Brenham or Amarillo or Abilene,” he said. “It’s going to be Austin and Austin is populated by government bureaucrats who see things through a government lens.”

Frazier referred to the idea of an easy secession for Texas as an “old-wives tale.”

It remains to be seen if the effort will die down as people continue to access the White House’s site We the People, which hosts the petitions.

A petition calling for the secession of Texas has garnered nearly 100,000 signatures in just over a week. In total, more than 40 states have filed petitions to secede from the United States, many requesting that the Obama Administration peacefully grant a state the right to withdraw from the United States and create a new government. The petitions declare:

“As the founding fathers of the United States of America made clear in the Declaration of Independence in 1776:

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

“…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and institute new Government…”

It is unclear how many of the signatures represent registered voters, as the White House site only requires that participants be 13-years-old or older, and register using their name and email address. Also, there is no polling data to determine how many Americans would support state secession.

However, there are petitions on the White House page that also call for a peaceful secession (1, 232 signatures); for the U.S. to “allow the States that have asked to secede to do so peacefully” (1, 826 signatures); and even one to “deport everyone that signed a petition to withdraw their state from the United States of America” (13,399).

To date, states that either have not filed or have not met the White House’s threshold to be listed on “We the People” include Washington, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Hawaii.

Petitions with more than 25,000 signatures can expect to receive a response, as the White House is committed under its terms of participation to do so. Petitions from states that have crossed that threshold so far are Texas, Louisiana, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee and North Carolina.

The petitions from Oregon, Alaska and Virginia (each with less than 13,000 signatures) request that these states be allowed to vote as a state whether or not to secede. There are also several states with more than one petition for secession:

South Carolina: (2 petitions) 32,000+ signatures

Missouri: (2 petitions) 26,000+ signatures

Georgia: (3 petitions) 42,000+ signatures

Oklahoma: (2 petitions) nearly 22,000 signatures

Ohio: (2 petitions) almost 15,000 signatures

Although Texas has nearly 100,000 petitioners , Texas Governor Rick Perry’s spokewoman, Catherine Frazier, told reporters that while Perry “shares the frustrations many Americans have with our federal government” he “believes in the greatness of our Union and nothing should be done to change it.”

Meanwhile, a petition filed with the White House for the city of Austin to withdraw from Texas and remain a part of the United States is gaining momentum, as 3,500 signatures have been collected so far.

Fix contributor Jessica Kubusch is a student at University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill.

IMAGE: Luna715/Flickr

Click here to Like The College Fix on Facebook.

{ 7 comments }