"Diversity" And Political Correctness At Brown U



Some info about the deeply embittered Prof. Hoodoo Heart of Brown U. Pic above. She is of Chinese origin but American educated. She has been given all sorts of honours so there is no doubt that bitterness and hatred pay off in academe. Post below recycled from Discriminations. See the original for links

In a recent post I discussed a speech criticizing college "diversity" officials by Prof. Evelyn Hu-DeHart of Brown, whose point was that they only gave their colleges the appearance of caring about "diversity" when in fact they weren't doing nearly enough. In an UPDATE to that post I quoted a long and somewhat harsh criticism of my comments from Prof. Hu-DeHart, and added some additional responses of my own. That exchange was read by a recent graduate of Brown, who sent me the following email and has graciously allowed me to reprint it.

I'm a recent graduate of Brown University....

At the beginning of my freshman year, we eager young students (the vast majority of whom were reflexively very liberal on racial issues) were herded into the school Athletic Center for a speech on ending racism and embracing diversity from who we were told was an extremely respected professor of "Ethnic Studies." Not having heard of the term and not yet cynical about the ivory tower, I remember sitting down with my new friends towards the front of the sea of plastic folding chairs and being genuinely excited about having my horizons broadened.

The arrogant and intolerant 45-minute screed that followed, from one Evelyn Hu-DeHart, obliterated my good will and kickstarted my disillusionment with the campus left, especially dogmatic post-modernists who think that saying "truth is relative" automatically makes any of their kneejerk opinions valid. Hu-Dehart's speech was thick with self-important condescension and could be summarized as "We must have a safe space for discussion, and anyone who disputes my views on race and gender is an intolerant bigot who is destroying that safe space, and all white people (and most heterosexuals) are conscious or unconscious racists/sexists/homophobes who must be reeducated by those of us who are sophisticated and have known oppression." Her lecture was followed by "break-out sessions," in which carefully-chosen "discussion leaders" would pressure and cajole white students into confessing their personal bigotry and their shame to be part of a racist culture before those of minority background, who were implictly granted de facto moral superiority and assumed to be powerless victims.

Even some of my most liberal friends were shocked and disheartened by the shallowness and extravagant pettiness of it all, and Hu-DeHart was the target of much derision - none of it racially based, though she would surely insist that it was "unconsciously" so. I wish I could say that her speech was the low point of this kind of nonsense, but in four years at Brown the propaganda and indoctrination are simply unavoidable; even asking questions of the conventional wisdom can get one tarred with all sorts of vicious accusations....

I think this statement is both an eloquent statement of the current, sorry state of political correctness on campus as well as an encouraging reminder that pockets of sanity remain.

UPDATE

Prof. Hu-DeHart objected to the editor of a mailing list to which I (and she) subscribe distributing a copy this post, with the former Brown student's communication, to the list. And she also objected to my quoting her criticism of my original post, which I did in the UPDATE to my original post linked in the first sentence of this post. Oh well, here I go again. Here are her objections and my response:

John: Why do you guys circulate unsigned diatribes like this? Right after you talked about ad hominen attacks! Why don't you practice what you preach? And John, did you ask my permission to post my comment on your blog, as you so kindly asked this anonymous student? Another double standard for those who agree with you and those who challenge you?

Ed: this is absolutely the last time I am going to weigh in on any issue, and this is exactly why so few of your readers dare to make any comments, for fear of their comments being widely circulated in such irresponsible ways!

Who exactly are "you guys"? In any event, I did not and do not regard the email by the former Brown student who related personal reactions to an indoctrination session at Brown to be a "diatribe," but I can understand why you wouldn't want it widely distributed. And it was not "unsigned" when I received it. The sender, now working for a politically correct employer, wanted to remain anonymous, and I honored that request.

My original blog posting discussing your criticisms of "diversity" as practiced today was sent by the editor to readers of this list. Your response was sent to this list - a list, by the way, that includes a number of journalists - which suggests to me that you did not regard your comments about what I said to be privileged and confidential.

Silly me: I would have thought that you'd want your objections to what I wrote to be read far and wide. Since you had sent your comments to a widely distributed list (a list, by the way, that may well have more, and more influential, readers than does my blog), it simply didn't occur to me that you would object to my sharing your objections to my original post with others who had read that post on my blog but who do not have access to the list. Indeed, the only "double standard" here would have been refusing to share with my readers the public criticisms of someone "who challenge[d] me."

Finally, I find it odd that you see a "double standard" in my belief that forwarding a personal communication to a public list must be treated with more care than quoting a communication to a public list on another public forum. But then, as I wrote in the UPDATE to my original post - diversiphiles such as yourself "think a number of odd things."

Tennessee Fights to Keep Open Charter Schools

Tennessee is fighting an uphill battle to save public charter schools from being rolled back, even though a recent survey shows the education option to be popular with parents statewide. House Bill 3935, sponsored by state Rep. Richard Montgomery (R-Sevierville), would remove a sunset on new charter school authorization currently set to take effect July 1. The legislation, still pending at press time, would also expand student eligibility for charter enrollment.

By law, only students from failing public schools in Tennessee's four largest cities--Chattanooga, Knoxville, Memphis, and Nashville--may enroll in charter schools. The state currently has 12 charter schools, all located in Memphis or Nashville. HB 3935 would allow any student in the state's four largest cities who meets the federal poverty definition to attend a charter, regardless of their current school's status.

The defeat of HB 3935 not only would prevent new charter schools from forming but also could further reduce the pool of eligible students, if failing schools improve or shut down. "If this bill doesn't pass, and charter schools are not reauthorized, then charter schools in Tennessee will die," said Drew Johnson, president of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.

The director of one of Tennessee's most successful charter schools agrees. "As schools get off the failing list, that means fewer and fewer kids and parents get to make choices about where they go to school," said Randy Dowell, school leader for KIPP Academy Nashville. Opened in 2005, KIPP Academy Nashville serves an overwhelmingly poor and African-American student population in grades five through seven. Despite this disadvantaged student body, KIPP Academy had math and reading proficiency testing rates at or above state averages in its first year. "We have really high and very clear expectations for what we want students to accomplish, both for learning and for their character development," Dowell said.

Allowing charter school authorizations to sunset would come at a time when evidence of Tennesseans' support for the public education option is remarkably high. According to a survey of 1,200 likely voters released in March by the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, 46 percent of Tennesseans favored allowing charter schools. Support was even higher, 55 percent, among respondents aged 36 to 55. "That's the age group that tends to be the most emotionally and financially invested in schooling," said Paul DiPerna, the Friedman Foundation's director of partner services.

With no exposure to charter schools in many parts of Tennessee, only 34 percent expressed familiarity with the public education option. But of that group, 63 percent had a favorable view of charters. "It suggests that the more people know about school choice options, the more favorable they are," DiPerna said.

Johnson said the primary obstacle to offering parents more choice is the Tennessee Education Association (TEA), which he said is responsible for placing the sunset provision in the 2002 charter school legislation. "The teachers union in Tennessee wants to prevent any sort of option for students because they essentially don't want the competition that would show how badly they are doing," Johnson said. The TEA did not respond to a request for comment.

More than half of Tennesseans in the Friedman survey described their state's public school system as either fair or poor. "Parents are displeased with the current education being offered to their kids in Tennessee's public schools," Johnson said.

Given the choice between four different types of education--traditional public, charter, private, and homeschool--nearly twice as many people chose charters (28 percent) as other public schools (15 percent). The response rate for charters was higher in Tennessee than in Idaho, Illinois, and Nevada, the other three states in which Friedman has sponsored surveys.

DiPerna hopes the survey results will awaken state policymakers to the growing demand for real educational options. "I think legislators, through no fault of their own, can have a misperception of what the public thinks about school choice," DiPerna said. "But this kind of polling can show them their constituents are open to charter schools, vouchers, and tax-credit scholarships."

The Friedman Foundation plans to release survey results from Oklahoma in June, and from Maryland later this year.

Source