UMN hosting prof to lecture on ‘the violence of whiteness’

[mjr]

"Violence of whiteness"?

Really?

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10632

"“She argues that whiteness poses an existential threat to social, political, and economic life in the U.S. and proposes that decentering whiteness is one of the most urgent social dilemmas of our time and demands our immediate attention,” the abstract adds. "

Existential Threat? Seriously?

[Daskinor]

Here is the an excerpt from where those lines came from, its an upcoming academic lecture not a class.

What do our perennial discussions about terrorism, patriotism, and immigration in the U.S. have in common? There has been little public discussion about the logic of white supremacy and how it contextualizes the ways in which we understand who is a terrorist/what counts as terrorism; who is a patriot/what counts as patriotism; and who is an immigrant and what counts as unfavorable immigration. Dr. Anderson-Levy argues that whiteness poses an existential threat to social, political, and economic life in the U.S. and proposes that decentering whiteness is one of the most urgent social dilemmas of our time and demands our immediate attention. This presentation explores the ways in which academic institutions are poised to either reproduce or interrupt these discourses. Analyzing and understanding the intersectional operation of whiteness has the potential to shift paradigms, if there is will and courage. This presentation prompts us to ask: what might it look like to decenter whiteness in our scholarship, pedagogy, institutional governance, and broader intellectual praxis - including in our budgets, our curricula, our disciplinary genealogies, our interactions with students, and our relationships with each other as colleagues?

Other background info before we go into it. Dr. Lisa Anderson-Levy is a respected Anthropologist from Jamaica. Her works deal with systemic problems in systems humans use. Many of her published works deal with gender issues in legal systems. And institutional racism in government systems.

I use the word 'systems' because as an Anthropologists her papers are very complex and deal with concepts that I don't quite understand enough to reexplain them in tl;dr terms.


Now the article is CLICK BAIT. You were fooled, they made up the "Violence of whiteness" then linked to something that did not have even have the line "Violence of whiteness" in it at all. Then they played your emotions by quoting a line from the lecture with little context. Like having Anthropologists talk about systemic racism is some kind of bad thing. They just cherry picked some words out of the lecture synopsis and packaged them in such a way that made you think this was bad, somehow. So they could waste your time, misinform you and outright lie to you for the add revenue money. Judging by the site code they are getting 11 impressions per click.

Not like they went to the lecture, took notes. Then wrote up a detailed article on what they disagreed with, and most importantly 'WHY'.

Seriously since when does someone giving a lecture on a subject they have spent 20 years researching become such a bad thing. That is how our academic system works, research and debate.


ps.

I looked up the source of the "Teaching is a political act" its not about getting rid of the conservatives in academia. They Just cherry picked her bio;

Teaching is a political act; one that transforms both teacher and student. Political because the production of knowledge involves choices about which voices get heard, which are suppressed, and which are ignored completely. Transformative because the dynamic nature of learning requires that all the participants in this process actively engage with each other, making the personal connections through which real learning occurs. My role as an educator is to lay the foundation for this learning experience through my choice of materials which reflect the diversity of scholarship in anthropology as well as other disciplines and to facilitate classroom engagements because it is through these connections that transformations occur.

tl;dr - What she means is that Every choice of material used to teach is very important and can be met with disagreement and debate. Not kill all the conservatives and white people.

[mjr]

Argument from Authority

Authority Bias

[Daskinor]

Argument from Authority

Authority Bias

How exactly do these apply to a online article written about the synopsis of an upcoming lecture.

"Argument from Authority" Applies to an argument that places its evidence basis on something a person has said. Generally without much evidence to support the claim. Like A spokesman saying this product is good because Dr. Soandso says this is good for you.

"Authority bias" is when someone in a position of power says something and its assumed to be true.

From your lack of context I believe you are trying to imply that just because shes an Anthropologist we should not listen to her views on race relations, without listening to the arguments. Especially not ones you inherently disagree with.

The fallacy would be (generalized) "There is inherent racism in the system, because I said so", it would not be a fallacy if one were to say "There is inherent racism in the system, because of these reasons" From there you can debate the evidence given.

Its not much different then saying the doctor is wrong when you have cancer. By simply refusing to accept the test results.

[mjr]

While I don't necessarily disagree with what you say above, I still have to question the phrase "the violence of whiteness".

Further, she may be an Anthropologist, and she may be an expert, but that doesn't make her right in all cases. Experts are frequently wrong.

And what does this:

Dr. Anderson-Levy argues that whiteness poses an existential threat to social, political, and economic life in the U.S. and proposes that decentering whiteness is one of the most urgent social dilemmas of our time and demands our immediate attention.

mean to you? How exactly do you interpret that?

[s_stabeler]

of the top of my head, one possibility is that the actual lecture's about the fact that in some ways, the fact that people are thought of as "White people" and "Black people" is part of the reason why racism still persists.

[mjr]

of the top of my head, one possibility is that the actual lecture's about the fact that in some ways, the fact that people are thought of as "White people" and "Black people" is part of the reason why racism still persists.

Possibly. I'm still waiting on a white person to come out and say "White people cause climate change!!"

Regardless, it still doesn't explain the "whitey == existential threat" comment.

[Daskinor]

While I don't necessarily disagree with what you say above, I still have to question the phrase "the violence of whiteness".

Further, she may be an Anthropologist, and she may be an expert, but that doesn't make her right in all cases. Experts are frequently wrong.

And what does this:

mean to you? How exactly do you interpret that?

As I stated above I could not find the phrase "the violence of whiteness" in any documentation sourced by the original article. I have a feeling it was an out of context quote from one of her works. However, proving a negative is hard and takes allot of time.

Second, I don't think that is the hook you want to rest your reasoning on. Why bother to have experts at all if they are "frequently wrong." Of course experts are wrong, they are also right. And we over the years, hundreds of years. Have developed a system where when facts are proven wrong, we adapt to the new facts. If you want I can give many examples over the years where key scientific theories were wrong. Concepts like DNA and Cellular Membranes where taught to students incorrectly or incompletely. When our understanding updated we updated our teaching too.

That segways into the line your quoting. And I am not going to even offer up my opinion into it. Mainly because to make an informed opinion on it I would need to attend the lecture and understand the context and evidence given. I am not one to shy away, when I see someone make a statement like that, I do not assume they are wrong. I would ask why.

I think dismissing subjects or ideas because we simply do not agree with them at a abstract level. Is how we got into this 'anti-intellectual' stance as a nation. That's what I see here. An subject matter expert giving a fairly blunt lecture about an uncomfortable subject. Instead of simply judging the evidence as presented. People dismiss the premise, dismiss experts because they could be wrong. Or simply attack the person because its easier then attacking the evidence.

In the end its the whole push and pull on people who are unwilling to change, accept change and seek change.