Possibly racist professor - What to do? Forum

[bk1]

i don't think undergrad classes are blind graded

Oh shit didn't realize OP was in undergrad.

[RodneyBoonfield]

Go into his office and ask him if he's racist and will there be a problem if you take his class. He will probably never ever call on you.

[Ludo!]

Don't be too quick to assume that he is racist. Some people just like to stir the pot a bit. My law school is super liberal, and I am naturally contrarian, so I always find myself trying to argue the opposite sides, and convince people that there indeed is a perspective other than the one-sided perspectives we see every day. For example, I am happy to pose an argument for removal of affirmative action or in favor of a case like Citizens United. I don't necessarily agree with the arguments I make, but I feel like its a perspective we never get, as controversial as the arguments may seem to a one-sided school population.

On the issue of race, things get dicey. Its one thing to offer a principled and logical argument against affirmative action, but its sort of hard to, even in the interest of creating debate, to defend that blogger with those disgustingly racist views. Why not speak with other students who have had him? See if he really is just someone who likes to stir the pot by defending the side that most people wouldn't take, or whether holds hateful racist views, because there is a big distinction between the two. Perhaps he is just a conservative professor. That has nothing to do with being racist. And if he is, then it may actually be quite interesting to take a class with a professor who will offer entirely different perspectives. Thats what learning is all about. Its not about being indoctrinated by those with the same views, but being challenged by those with differing views.

Everybody in your class hates you. hth

[kaiser]

Don't be too quick to assume that he is racist. Some people just like to stir the pot a bit. My law school is super liberal, and I am naturally contrarian, so I always find myself trying to argue the opposite sides, and convince people that there indeed is a perspective other than the one-sided perspectives we see every day. For example, I am happy to pose an argument for removal of affirmative action or in favor of a case like Citizens United. I don't necessarily agree with the arguments I make, but I feel like its a perspective we never get, as controversial as the arguments may seem to a one-sided school population.

On the issue of race, things get dicey. Its one thing to offer a principled and logical argument against affirmative action, but its sort of hard to, even in the interest of creating debate, to defend that blogger with those disgustingly racist views. Why not speak with other students who have had him? See if he really is just someone who likes to stir the pot by defending the side that most people wouldn't take, or whether holds hateful racist views, because there is a big distinction between the two. Perhaps he is just a conservative professor. That has nothing to do with being racist. And if he is, then it may actually be quite interesting to take a class with a professor who will offer entirely different perspectives. Thats what learning is all about. Its not about being indoctrinated by those with the same views, but being challenged by those with differing views.

Everybody in your class hates you. hth

Lol I didn't mean I do this in class. I keep my damn mouth shut during class. I meant in private discussions with people.

[Ludo!]

Don't be too quick to assume that he is racist. Some people just like to stir the pot a bit. My law school is super liberal, and I am naturally contrarian, so I always find myself trying to argue the opposite sides, and convince people that there indeed is a perspective other than the one-sided perspectives we see every day. For example, I am happy to pose an argument for removal of affirmative action or in favor of a case like Citizens United. I don't necessarily agree with the arguments I make, but I feel like its a perspective we never get, as controversial as the arguments may seem to a one-sided school population.

On the issue of race, things get dicey. Its one thing to offer a principled and logical argument against affirmative action, but its sort of hard to, even in the interest of creating debate, to defend that blogger with those disgustingly racist views. Why not speak with other students who have had him? See if he really is just someone who likes to stir the pot by defending the side that most people wouldn't take, or whether holds hateful racist views, because there is a big distinction between the two. Perhaps he is just a conservative professor. That has nothing to do with being racist. And if he is, then it may actually be quite interesting to take a class with a professor who will offer entirely different perspectives. Thats what learning is all about. Its not about being indoctrinated by those with the same views, but being challenged by those with differing views.

Everybody in your class hates you. hth

Lol I didn't mean I do this in class. I keep my damn mouth shut during class. I meant in private discussions with people. So people in my class hate me, but only those with whom I privately discuss these issues.

Oh ok good. I take it back then

[bk1]

I am naturally contrarian, so I always find myself trying to argue the opposite sides, and convince people that there indeed is a perspective other than the one-sided perspectives we see every day.

Is this you? (LinkRemoved)

[minnbills]

My law school is super liberal, and I am naturally contrarian, so I always find myself trying to argue the opposite sides

Everybody in your class hates you. hth

kaiser outed as a gunner lol

[kaiser]

My law school is super liberal, and I am naturally contrarian, so I always find myself trying to argue the opposite sides

Everybody in your class hates you. hth

kaiser outed as a gunner lol

Haha, like I said, never in class. I wouldn't be caught dead being the gunner who feels the incessant need to counterpoint the professor just for the sake of argument when people are paying to hear the professor teach the law, not debate with a kid who couldn't wait until after class to comment. I obviously misphrased it, since I meant in the context of personal discussions with classmates and friends who actually want to discuss these issues.

[Blessedassurance]

I love The Onion!

[kaiser]

I am naturally contrarian, so I always find myself trying to argue the opposite sides, and convince people that there indeed is a perspective other than the one-sided perspectives we see every day.

Is this you? (LinkRemoved)

Nah, I never go too far as to be tactless and insulting. Its usually only when I see the droves turning into a stampede behind some cause or opinion. At that point, I usually say, "whoa, hold up, lets at least think about this first". Its not that I don't ultimately join them sometimes, but I'm usually among the last through the door when I see the stampede mindset taking effect.

[ben4847]

Well fellas, I read The Talk, and I didn't find it racist, given the context of the articles it was responding to.

The articles it was responding to were about how Black parents give their kids "the talk" about how some white people will be prejudiced towards them, and about how they should be careful in white neighborhoods, and careful in white crowds, and generally consider whites a possible threat. There is no question this is racial profiling, and there is equally no question that it is sound advice, based on sound statistical fact.

"The Talk" was a response to those, and was intended as a somewhat satirical response to how a white parent might give their kids "the talk" about how some blacks are hostile to whites (because some whites are hostile to blacks, etc. Yes, we did start it, but that is where we are now) and how they should be wary in black neighborhoods (good advice) and wary if suddenly surrounded by a crowd of black people. There is again no question that this is racial profiling, and again no question that it is sound advice. The rest of the article follows in this vein, racially profiling based on sound statistical fact.

The article is about racial profiling. I don't read the article to support racial profiling, but to be poking fun of the fact that racial profiling is apparently accepted when coming from blacks, but not from whites. Is that a good argument? I don't know. Is it a racist argument? Not necessarily.

Regarding racial profiling, I think we should accept that racial profiling is not inherently racist, when based on sound statistical fact. The reason we look negatively on racial profiling, is likely for these two reasons:
A. We know that it is often based on bigotry, and not on statistical fact.
B. We want to live in a world where people are given the chance to live on their own merits, and not on the statistical merits of groups they might be identified with.

Those are two good reasons, and I agree that racial profiling is a negative thing to do. But if someone were to disagree with those two reasons, I don't think I would consider him racist.

Please don't call me racist. I am not racist either. Call me stupid if you must; I can live with stupid.

[PARTY]

Don't be too quick to assume that he is racist. Some people just like to stir the pot a bit. My law school is super liberal, and I am naturally contrarian, so I always find myself trying to argue the opposite sides, and convince people that there indeed is a perspective other than the one-sided perspectives we see every day. For example, I am happy to pose an argument for removal of affirmative action or in favor of a case like Citizens United. I don't necessarily agree with the arguments I make, but I feel like its a perspective we never get, as controversial as the arguments may seem to a one-sided school population.

On the issue of race, things get dicey. Its one thing to offer a principled and logical argument against affirmative action, but its sort of hard to, even in the interest of creating debate, to defend that blogger with those disgustingly racist views. Why not speak with other students who have had him? See if he really is just someone who likes to stir the pot by defending the side that most people wouldn't take, or whether holds hateful racist views, because there is a big distinction between the two. Perhaps he is just a conservative professor. That has nothing to do with being racist. And if he is, then it may actually be quite interesting to take a class with a professor who will offer entirely different perspectives. Thats what learning is all about. Its not about being indoctrinated by those with the same views, but being challenged by those with differing views.

Everybody in your class hates you. hth

yeah, but only because most kids put no thought into their "beliefs," and class is way more fun when you rumple people's feathers.

[Ludo!]

Well fellas, I read The Talk, and I didn't find it racist, given the context of the articles it was responding to.

The articles it was responding to were about how Black parents give their kids "the talk" about how some white people will be prejudiced towards them, and about how they should be careful in white neighborhoods, and careful in white crowds, and generally consider whites a possible threat. There is no question this is racial profiling, and there is equally no question that it is sound advice, based on sound statistical fact.

"The Talk" was a response to those, and was intended as a somewhat satirical response to how a white parent might give their kids "the talk" about how some blacks are hostile to whites (because some whites are hostile to blacks, etc. Yes, we did start it, but that is where we are now) and how they should be wary in black neighborhoods (good advice) and wary if suddenly surrounded by a crowd of black people. There is again no question that this is racial profiling, and again no question that it is sound advice. The rest of the article follows in this vein, racially profiling based on sound statistical fact.

The article is about racial profiling. I don't read the article to support racial profiling, but to be poking fun of the fact that racial profiling is apparently accepted when coming from blacks, but not from whites. Is that a good argument? I don't know. Is it a racist argument? Not necessarily.

Regarding racial profiling, I think we should accept that racial profiling is not inherently racist, when based on sound statistical fact. The reason we look negatively on racial profiling, is likely for these two reasons:
A. We know that it is often based on bigotry, and not on statistical fact.
B. We want to live in a world where people are given the chance to live on their own merits, and not on the statistical merits of groups they might be identified with.

Those are two good reasons, and I agree that racial profiling is a negative thing to do. But if someone were to disagree with those two reasons, I don't think I would consider him racist.

Please don't call me racist. I am not racist either. Call me stupid if you must; I can live with stupid.

Are you fucking kidding me?

You read an article that said you shouldn't be around black people, that black people are less intelligent than white people, that you should scrutinize the character of black politicians more than white politicians, that you shouldn't help black people who need help... and you don't think the article is racist?

Guess what... you're racist AND stupid

[ben4847]

Well fellas, I read The Talk, and I didn't find it racist, given the context of the articles it was responding to.

The articles it was responding to were about how Black parents give their kids "the talk" about how some white people will be prejudiced towards them, and about how they should be careful in white neighborhoods, and careful in white crowds, and generally consider whites a possible threat. There is no question this is racial profiling, and there is equally no question that it is sound advice, based on sound statistical fact.

"The Talk" was a response to those, and was intended as a somewhat satirical response to how a white parent might give their kids "the talk" about how some blacks are hostile to whites (because some whites are hostile to blacks, etc. Yes, we did start it, but that is where we are now) and how they should be wary in black neighborhoods (good advice) and wary if suddenly surrounded by a crowd of black people. There is again no question that this is racial profiling, and again no question that it is sound advice. The rest of the article follows in this vein, racially profiling based on sound statistical fact.

The article is about racial profiling. I don't read the article to support racial profiling, but to be poking fun of the fact that racial profiling is apparently accepted when coming from blacks, but not from whites. Is that a good argument? I don't know. Is it a racist argument? Not necessarily.

Regarding racial profiling, I think we should accept that racial profiling is not inherently racist, when based on sound statistical fact. The reason we look negatively on racial profiling, is likely for these two reasons:
A. We know that it is often based on bigotry, and not on statistical fact.
B. We want to live in a world where people are given the chance to live on their own merits, and not on the statistical merits of groups they might be identified with.

Those are two good reasons, and I agree that racial profiling is a negative thing to do. But if someone were to disagree with those two reasons, I don't think I would consider him racist.

Please don't call me racist. I am not racist either. Call me stupid if you must; I can live with stupid.

Are you fucking kidding me?

You read an article that said you shouldn't be around black people, that black people are less intelligent than white people, that you should scrutinize the character of black politicians more than white politicians, that you shouldn't help black people who need help... and you don't think the article is racist?

Guess what... you're racist AND stupid

did you read it?

[PARTY]

ah, but if the article was legitimately written to satirize a common black practice (i make no claims about the legitimacy of this statement), then it should be read in a different light.

[Ludo!]

Well fellas, I read The Talk, and I didn't find it racist, given the context of the articles it was responding to.

The articles it was responding to were about how Black parents give their kids "the talk" about how some white people will be prejudiced towards them, and about how they should be careful in white neighborhoods, and careful in white crowds, and generally consider whites a possible threat. There is no question this is racial profiling, and there is equally no question that it is sound advice, based on sound statistical fact.

"The Talk" was a response to those, and was intended as a somewhat satirical response to how a white parent might give their kids "the talk" about how some blacks are hostile to whites (because some whites are hostile to blacks, etc. Yes, we did start it, but that is where we are now) and how they should be wary in black neighborhoods (good advice) and wary if suddenly surrounded by a crowd of black people. There is again no question that this is racial profiling, and again no question that it is sound advice. The rest of the article follows in this vein, racially profiling based on sound statistical fact.

The article is about racial profiling. I don't read the article to support racial profiling, but to be poking fun of the fact that racial profiling is apparently accepted when coming from blacks, but not from whites. Is that a good argument? I don't know. Is it a racist argument? Not necessarily.

Regarding racial profiling, I think we should accept that racial profiling is not inherently racist, when based on sound statistical fact. The reason we look negatively on racial profiling, is likely for these two reasons:
A. We know that it is often based on bigotry, and not on statistical fact.
B. We want to live in a world where people are given the chance to live on their own merits, and not on the statistical merits of groups they might be identified with.

Those are two good reasons, and I agree that racial profiling is a negative thing to do. But if someone were to disagree with those two reasons, I don't think I would consider him racist.

Please don't call me racist. I am not racist either. Call me stupid if you must; I can live with stupid.

Are you fucking kidding me?

You read an article that said you shouldn't be around black people, that black people are less intelligent than white people, that you should scrutinize the character of black politicians more than white politicians, that you shouldn't help black people who need help... and you don't think the article is racist?

Guess what... you're racist AND stupid

did you read it?

Of course. If his argument was just 'stay away from big crowds of black people' and 'stay out of black neighborhoods' then I would be more willing to buy your argument that it's just satire. It goes way beyond that. It actually says not to help black people in distress. It says black people are less intelligent than white people. Where is the satire in that?

[Davidbentley]

When you get fired by the National Review for being an idiot, then you know you have crossed a line. It's like being kicked out of law school for being a douche. This is an organization that employs Dennis Prager.

[PARTY]

did you read it?

Of course. If his argument was just 'stay away from big crowds of black people' and 'stay out of black neighborhoods' then I would be more willing to buy your argument that it's just satire. It goes way beyond that. It actually says not to help black people in distress. It says black people are less intelligent than white people. Where is the satire in that?

the satire would be acknowledged if it was a commonly known fact that black parents told their children to not help white people in distress or that white people are [insert disparaging adjective here]...

but i for one have no idea what black parents tell their kids.

[kapital98]

Well fellas, I read The Talk, and I didn't find it racist, given the context of the articles it was responding to.

The articles it was responding to were about how Black parents give their kids "the talk" about how some white people will be prejudiced towards them, and about how they should be careful in white neighborhoods, and careful in white crowds, and generally consider whites a possible threat. There is no question this is racial profiling, and there is equally no question that it is sound advice, based on sound statistical fact.

"The Talk" was a response to those, and was intended as a somewhat satirical response to how a white parent might give their kids "the talk" about how some blacks are hostile to whites (because some whites are hostile to blacks, etc. Yes, we did start it, but that is where we are now) and how they should be wary in black neighborhoods (good advice) and wary if suddenly surrounded by a crowd of black people. There is again no question that this is racial profiling, and again no question that it is sound advice. The rest of the article follows in this vein, racially profiling based on sound statistical fact.

The article is about racial profiling. I don't read the article to support racial profiling, but to be poking fun of the fact that racial profiling is apparently accepted when coming from blacks, but not from whites. Is that a good argument? I don't know. Is it a racist argument? Not necessarily.

Regarding racial profiling, I think we should accept that racial profiling is not inherently racist, when based on sound statistical fact. The reason we look negatively on racial profiling, is likely for these two reasons:
A. We know that it is often based on bigotry, and not on statistical fact.
B. We want to live in a world where people are given the chance to live on their own merits, and not on the statistical merits of groups they might be identified with.

Those are two good reasons, and I agree that racial profiling is a negative thing to do. But if someone were to disagree with those two reasons, I don't think I would consider him racist.

Please don't call me racist. I am not racist either. Call me stupid if you must; I can live with stupid.

Are you fucking kidding me?

You read an article that said you shouldn't be around black people, that black people are less intelligent than white people, that you should scrutinize the character of black politicians more than white politicians, that you shouldn't help black people who need help... and you don't think the article is racist?

Guess what... you're racist AND stupid

did you read it?

Of course. If his argument was just 'stay away from big crowds of black people' and 'stay out of black neighborhoods' then I would be more willing to buy your argument that it's just satire. It goes way beyond that. It actually says not to help black people in distress. It says black people are less intelligent than white people. Where is the satire in that?

It's a racist statement thinly veiled as satire. It's essentially a modern version of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve

By saying it's satire he can claim he's not being racist and win sympathy from other racists (like above) when attacked by "liberals."

P.S. The wikipedia page for the "Bell Curve" has drastically changed since the last time I read it. Now it defends the book as not being racist.

[PARTY]

it's funny that anyone who presents an argument contrary to the standard "OMG it's racist!!11!1! if you agree or back it up, then you're racist!!1111!!!!!!!" is called a racist.

[Ludo!]

did you read it?

Of course. If his argument was just 'stay away from big crowds of black people' and 'stay out of black neighborhoods' then I would be more willing to buy your argument that it's just satire. It goes way beyond that. It actually says not to help black people in distress. It says black people are less intelligent than white people. Where is the satire in that?

the satire would be acknowledged if it was a commonly known fact that black parents told their children to not help white people in distress or that white people are [insert disparaging adjective here]...

but i for one have no idea what black parents tell their kids.

His article was written as a 'response' to articles about "The Talk" that black parents have to have with their kids. Stuff like - how to deal with police when they're stopped for no reason, "Don’t walk around with stuff in your pockets. People will think you stole something.", telling their kids that "they're dealing with a society that is fearful and hostile toward them, simply because of the color of their skin". A talk about "what it means to be a black teenager in a country with a history of regarding young black men as a threat."

And Derbyshire's "satirical" response is that black people are stupid and shouldn't be helped? That's not satire

[PARTY]

did you read it?

Of course. If his argument was just 'stay away from big crowds of black people' and 'stay out of black neighborhoods' then I would be more willing to buy your argument that it's just satire. It goes way beyond that. It actually says not to help black people in distress. It says black people are less intelligent than white people. Where is the satire in that?

the satire would be acknowledged if it was a commonly known fact that black parents told their children to not help white people in distress or that white people are [insert disparaging adjective here]...

but i for one have no idea what black parents tell their kids.

His article was written as a 'response' to articles about "The Talk" that black parents have to have with their kids. Stuff like - how to deal with police when they're stopped for no reason, "Don’t walk around with stuff in your pockets. People will think you stole something.", telling their kids that "they're dealing with a society that is fearful and hostile toward them, simply because of the color of their skin". A talk about "what it means to be a black teenager in a country with a history of regarding young black men as a threat."

And Derbyshire's "satirical" response is that black people are stupid and shouldn't be helped? That's not satire

you sound like you purport to know everything that a black parent tells their kids.

[Ludo!]

you sound like you purport to know everything that a black parent tells their kids.

I can't tell if you're trolling or not. I'm quoting from the articles that Derbyshire linked to that he said he was responding to. I imagine that my knowledge of what black parents tell their kids is about the same as Derbyshire's.

[ben4847]

did you read it?

Of course. If his argument was just 'stay away from big crowds of black people' and 'stay out of black neighborhoods' then I would be more willing to buy your argument that it's just satire. It goes way beyond that. It actually says not to help black people in distress. It says black people are less intelligent than white people. Where is the satire in that?

the satire would be acknowledged if it was a commonly known fact that black parents told their children to not help white people in distress or that white people are [insert disparaging adjective here]...

but i for one have no idea what black parents tell their kids.

correct. And neither have I any idea what black parents tell their kids.

As it happens, I read the part of not helping black people in distress, to be telling the kids to be afraid of them, and not help them so as not to be vulnerable. And satirically pointing that we could certainly imagine a black mother in Mississippi telling her son that--and rightfully.

Stating that one group has more intelligence on average than another is not racist--if it is true. I don't know if it is true, and I don't really care to know. I do know that studies have shown that some ethnic groups have higher average IQ, just as some have higher average weight, or longer average toes (or other organs) or slantier eyes. Is it racial profiling? Absolutely. And that is what the article is about.

[ben4847]

did you read it?

Of course. If his argument was just 'stay away from big crowds of black people' and 'stay out of black neighborhoods' then I would be more willing to buy your argument that it's just satire. It goes way beyond that. It actually says not to help black people in distress. It says black people are less intelligent than white people. Where is the satire in that?

the satire would be acknowledged if it was a commonly known fact that black parents told their children to not help white people in distress or that white people are [insert disparaging adjective here]...

but i for one have no idea what black parents tell their kids.

His article was written as a 'response' to articles about "The Talk" that black parents have to have with their kids. Stuff like - how to deal with police when they're stopped for no reason, "Don’t walk around with stuff in your pockets. People will think you stole something.", telling their kids that "they're dealing with a society that is fearful and hostile toward them, simply because of the color of their skin". A talk about "what it means to be a black teenager in a country with a history of regarding young black men as a threat."

And Derbyshire's "satirical" response is that black people are stupid and shouldn't be helped? That's not satire

no, the satire response is what if a white parent would tell their kid to be wary of a society which is occasionally fearful of and hostile towards them.

read the article.